« Thursday Links Open Thread »

February 12, 2009

Speaker Quinn Bears Bad News for Real Estate Crowd

As the featured speaker at Tuesday's quarterly gathering of the Brooklyn Real Estate Roundtable, Council Speaker Christine Quinn didn't tell the audience of developers, property owners and brokers what they wanted to hear. If the City wrests control over rent stabilization from the State, as is expected, Quinn said that it would likely work to undo the pro-landlord steps that have been taken in recent years regarding decontrol and destabilization. She also didn't give the impression that 421-a program would be reinstated anytime soon. The one bit of news that didn't elicit a groan from the crowd: She does not expect that the city will raise property taxes later this year. Oh, and she also made glowing comments about Two Trees when asked about the prospects for its proposed Dock Street development.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8389

Comments

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/bad-ideas-never-die.html

Posted by: eh at February 12, 2009 9:06 AM

Yes, we need to turn over rent control to the wingnuts and hacks in the City Council so that they can continue to protect folks like Speaker Quinn, Governor Paterson and Charlie Rangel, all of whom live in such housing. They all openly flout the rent control law, in that they own other residences.

What a crock.

Posted by: benson at February 12, 2009 9:16 AM

She says now "she does not expect the city to raise property taxes later this year" but wait until later this year and it'll be "we didn't expect to, but now we have to"

Politicians...

Posted by: christopher at February 12, 2009 9:24 AM

These vote pandering fools will be targeted by the real estate industry along with working, taxing paying citizens who happen to own their homes, and will be booted from office.

This isn't the 1970's any more. Too many people own real estate in this city, whether rental buildings, coops, or condos, to allow welfare promoters like Quinn to put the nail in the coffin that is quickly becoming our local real estate market.

I predict Quinn's career will be quickly over if her threats are acted on.

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of NYC jobs now tied to real estate that are in peril. . . What a moron!

Posted by: IronBalls at February 12, 2009 9:24 AM

We finally agree on something, IronBalls!!!!

No matter what one predicts for real eestate, people are a lot more wealthy now because of that market and are not interested in seeing that chipped away at.

People are tired of welfare and entitlement promotion.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 12, 2009 9:30 AM

I want to live for free too in somebody else's building! Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie!

You folks who voted for these pandering Democrats are responsible for this crap.

At some point, with these free market rent restrictions and sky high rising property taxes (currently 30% of gross income), businesses are just going to pick up and leave this city.

Quinn and her corrupt ilk will surely find others to blame since that is their corrupt nature.

But we're the ones who are getting screwed . . . all of us . . . renters and owners alike.

Only the laziest, stupidest, four child welfare family is helped -- the ones that in a perfect world should be forced by market conditions to move to Allentown, or somewhere cheaper anyways because they CAN'T AFFORD to live in NYC and shouldn't be supported by tax payers and private landlords to stay here.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 12, 2009 9:37 AM

I found this online:
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/quinns-rent/83610/

"Ms. Quinn pays $1,600 a month for a one-bedroom in Chelsea, where many market-rate apartments go for $2,000 and up. She also owns half of a four-bedroom house in New Jersey that is worth more than $500,000. She makes $141,000 a year from the City Council, and her partner is a corporate lawyer."

Christine Quinn should give up her rent-stablized apartment to someone who genuinely needs it. Say a NURSE! Someone who actually helps people.

Shouldn't there be a conflict of interest issue for her to have such strong opinions on rent stablized apartments when she profits from one. Imagine if she owned shares in a company and awarded big contracts to that company. I can't believe New Yorkers can stand for this.

Posted by: katebushwick at February 12, 2009 9:46 AM

"Shouldn't there be a conflict of interest issue for her to have such strong opinions on rent stablized apartments when she profits from one."

Sure, but it's no more of a conflict than repealing term limits, but having the repeal apply only to current incumbents, i.e. the very people who changed the law.

These people are far past having any sense of shame.

Posted by: Sparafucile at February 12, 2009 9:52 AM

" I can't believe New Yorkers can stand for this. "

Katebushwick;

Believe it. Politics in NYC is all about 2 things:

-a) Folks continually voting for one party (Democrats) to show how "enlightened" they are. Once they pull the lever, most folks fall asleep and never watch what is going on. This isn't a knock against the Democrats, it's a knock against lazy voters who don't believe in keeping a party in check by allowing a viable competitor;

-b) the only motivated voters in NYC are those who are the recepients of government largess, be it tenants in rent-controlled buildings, public-school teachers, etc. These are the people that Quinn represents.

Posted by: benson at February 12, 2009 10:03 AM

C'mon people. Quinn is protecting the interests of hardworking working-class families by proposing to raise the income ceiling for rent-stabilized apartment from $175,000 to $240,000. Thank you for looking out for the little guy, Ms. Quinn.

Posted by: Suburbandude at February 12, 2009 10:09 AM

term limits for Sheldon. When is that going on the agenda?

Posted by: dittoburg at February 12, 2009 10:09 AM

not to mention her blind support of some union causes.

Posted by: oldrte10 at February 12, 2009 10:21 AM

Benson, you make a good point. People should be blaming themselves for blindly supporting politicians or worse, for being unaware of what their government is doing.

Posted by: SouthParker at February 12, 2009 10:35 AM

"-b) the only motivated voters in NYC are those who are the recepients of government largess, be it tenants in rent-controlled buildings, public-school teachers, etc. These are the people that Quinn represents." - benson

Benson,
I resemble that remark ;)

Full disclosure, I am a NYC teacher and I acknowledge the pretty awesome bene's we get. But I am constantly annoyed by the general mentality of teachers of the union (which I am forced to contribute to).

I sometimes think I'm the only right/center-right employee in a way bent left work place...

Posted by: christopher at February 12, 2009 10:35 AM

IB: "Only the laziest, stupidest, four child welfare family is helped..."

I hereby award you the coveted Bigoted Quote of the Day Award for that, having wrested it from winelover from last week.

Any Democrats on this thread?

Posted by: cmu at February 12, 2009 10:50 AM

I'm a Democrat but I vote Republican in all local elections. In fact that's my new tag.

***Always vote Republican in local elections***

Posted by: eh at February 12, 2009 10:57 AM

Very simple rule of thumb: If you want to discourage something-tax it, if you want to encourage something-subsidize it.

If everyone understood this as an absolute fact, we would not have half the problems we have today.

Posted by: newsouthsloper at February 12, 2009 11:07 AM

Suburban Dude,

For rent control an income of $240K is "working class" that needs protection and for Obama's tax plan "rich" and needing a tax increase income of $250K. That doesn't make sense to me.

Posted by: Boerum Hill at February 12, 2009 11:10 AM

Ha!
You guys slay me.
Imagine a NYC politician actually supporting rent control! Did you ever?
Rent control is like our municipal religion. It is our sacred cow, our holy of the holies. Rent-regulated tenants outnumber landlords by about 50,000 to one. It will never die!

Posted by: sam at February 12, 2009 11:11 AM

This kind of political hack shit makes me want to move our business to Philadelphia. It certainly encourages flight.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 12, 2009 11:14 AM

For the record, I realize all sort of folks are given a free ride by the NYC rent regulations.

I know a retired millionaire who lives in a $1100/mo stabilized classic six a block from Central Park on the Upper West Side.

He spends most afternoon sipping Cherry with his buddies at the Friar's Club.

Those NYC rent laws sure do help those in need!

Posted by: IronBalls at February 12, 2009 11:14 AM

CMU,

According to dictionary.com, bigoted means:

"utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

Please explain how my comment was bigoted?

And while you're at it, please explain why tax payers should support non working welfare recipients and their huge families because they're too stupid and lazy to wear condoms?

I can't wait to hear your explanation. . .

Posted by: IronBalls at February 12, 2009 11:24 AM

Boreum Hill: according to Eric Schneiderman (Dem, Manhattan) an income of $250K makes you a millionaire and he wants to tax you as such, but rent control is to be extended to $240K salaries. So middle class in NYC means earning $241-$249K. Finally, we have a definition.

Posted by: dittoburg at February 12, 2009 11:25 AM

"Boreum Hill: according to Eric Schneiderman (Dem, Manhattan) an income of $250K makes you a millionaire and he wants to tax you as such, but rent control is to be extended to $240K salaries. So middle class in NYC means earning $241-$249K. Finally, we have a definition. "

This reminds me of the old joke about liberal public policy, which I hate because it looks like there's some truth to it:

If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
When it stops moving, subsidize it.

Posted by: Sparafucile at February 12, 2009 11:34 AM

"Sure, but it's no more of a conflict than repealing term limits, but having the repeal apply only to current incumbents, i.e. the very people who changed the law."

Exactly. She's a sell-out. You're SURPRISED she again voted in her own self-interest?

Benson, my wife is a public school teacher. She breaks her neck for her kids, continues to pursue higher qualifications, and often spends her own money to buy supplies for her kids because the school is often short. She and I have worked hard for everything we have. We've always worked and paid taxes. We each put ourselves through college, and have since put my son through college. We rented at market rate and still saved and bought a house. We have never taken a DIME of public money, except when I got unemployment when I was out of work in the recession in the 1980s. If anyone believes in hard work and not getting something for nothing, it's us. That said, your generalizations about teachers in particular are insulting and off target.

Posted by: East New York at February 12, 2009 11:38 AM

Just keep your eyes on California, which leads New York in foolishness. By creating a class of voter that either a) depends on government subsidized programs or b) works for the government, you end up with a guaranteed Democratic voting block that will grow larger and larger as a) they throw more subsidies to interest groups and b) expand government until they take over the state. Then you're left with so many anti-business, anti-private property, anti-capitalist, hyper-regulatory tax-the-rich crap on the books that businesses flee, capital flees, the taxpayers you've been soaking flee and, well, your much-maligned golden geese are gone or dead. Your state crumbles and you're at the part where you're state's not only broke, it's so broke you're going to have to set loose 58,000 prisoners.

But by all means, keep voting Democrat on the local levels. (Not that voting Republican's going to help at this point. The numbers simply aren't there. And it's not like they're that much better when they're in charge.)

Posted by: RaginCajun at February 12, 2009 11:41 AM

Thank god for the NRA.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 12, 2009 11:54 AM

ENY- my sister and brother-in-law are also teachs and pretty much just like you and your wife . I've worked all my life, paid my taxes, never asked for handout- so I agree with you. NYC teachers have it very very tough and they are often in dangerous schools.

I don't think all these issues are DEM/REP- they're about greed and ineptitude at every level and in every political entity. for years NYC has been shortchanged- we generated far more tax dollars than we ever saw returned. We basically supported the entire state and the state assembly was majority Republican.

While we bat around "tax-the-rich", the fact of the matter is they also get huge tax breaks, as do corporations. They have accountants who are very creative and know every loophole and deduction. The real issues isn't how tax money is generated, its what gets done with it. And frankly, NYS has been doing a lousy job. In NYC neither party does a good job. Bloomberg is certainly better than Guiliani but if you went over the city budget line by line you'd find plenty of misued fund there too.

That said, I don't like Quinn- she obviously votes selfi-interest and sucks up to the mayor.And as far as the landlord thing- as much as I believe in reasonable rents, that's not going to happen if we screw the landlords either.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 12, 2009 12:05 PM

I'm not a teacher, bxgrl, my wife is. But thanks. Her school is not dangerous at all, but it is at times is short on supplies and funding. She and other teachers often do their part to fill the gaps. They deserve MORE money, not less, and they certainly aren't "recipients of government largesse." They're hard-working professionals who expect to be fairly compensated for their efforts - just like anyone else.

Posted by: East New York at February 12, 2009 12:11 PM

At least the Speaker is honest. That is some amazingly candid speech for a politician. She probably knows that rent control is harmful, but if that's the price we must pay so that she can get elected, it's worth it to her!

Posted by: spqrxxi at February 12, 2009 12:20 PM

"While we bat around "tax-the-rich", the fact of the matter is they also get huge tax breaks."

One thing to consider bxgrl, is the defintion of "rich" varies on who you ask, and those earning (if I remember the range correctly) $135-225K actually pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than any other group in US society (those below having lower marginal rates, credits etc. which begin to phase out, and those above earning plenty of income from non-salary sources at lower tax rates). These people (middle class in NYC perhaps), while being well aware that people can survive on much less, don't count themselves as rich and are apt to think they are already paying their fare share. And when it comes to city taxes, they think "city employees getting to retire after 20 yrs on 2/3rds salary" while they, like most people, have to work till they drop and save their own retirement money, company pensions being as prevalent nowadays as gas-lighting.

Seems to me everybody on all sides are pissed off now. At least spring is around the corner.

Posted by: dittoburg at February 12, 2009 12:20 PM

East NY;

My wife comes from a family of NYC public schoold teachers. I mean no disrespect to your wife or any individual NYC schoold teacher. It is a tough job, no doubt about it.

Having said that, I remain firm in my statement that both NYC and NYS lawmakers are beholden to the teacher's union. The teacher's union is the largest lobbyist in both NYC and NYS.

Moreover, I know first-hand that the teacher's union is just an extension of the Democrat party in NYC and NYS. I have a friend who was a dedicated teacher at Frnklin Lane HS in East NY, your old nabe. He was truly dedicated to the job, and wanted to make a difference. He was so good that he was being considered for the position of principal. He was told point-blank that he had to join the local democratic machine in order to get this position. He quit.

I have a cousin who works at Port Richmond HS in Staten island. He regales me with the story of union rules, patronage and such. This is what I'm talking about.

I'll tell you this too: after 30 years of travelling heavily in the private sector, I would love to have a second career as a school teacher. I won't do it, however. The reason? I don't want to put up with the union-mentality crap, that I see in my wife's family all the time, and my cousin tells me about. I don't want to deal with a union grievance for working some overtime ahead of some old, do-nothing fart who has seniority.

Once again, Est NY, I mean no disrespect to individual school teachers, like your wife.

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

ditto...I know a number of people whom I went to high school with who took state and city jobs. The benefits, vacation time and pension are enviable. I just think that if I did that I would have committed suicide along the way from the day-to-day interaction with most of those people.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 12, 2009 12:28 PM

I wouldn't be an NYC school teacher in some schools I can think of if you paid me $500K. Good luck to them.

Posted by: dittoburg at February 12, 2009 12:36 PM

Similar to what happened when the Subway fare was directly controlled by politicians - If the city council ends up controlling rent increases for Stabilized housing it is inevitable that NYC will face abandonment and huge housing blight over the next decade.

Posted by: fsrg at February 12, 2009 12:36 PM

I don't like to get into these political discussions, mostly because both parties are no strangers to self interest, greed, pandering, ineptitude, waste and hypocrisy.

My mother was also a teacher, as is my aunt, a public school art teacher here in Bklyn, and both could fry the air talking about the unions, the entrenched stupidity, and the cronyism. But for both of them, it was still about the kids, and both, like Mrs. ENY, would go out of pocket for supplies, and well beyond their duties to make sure kids got educated well. In spite of the unions, etc, the good NYC teachers deserve to be paid more, and I know that that is a complicated idea which needs to be expanded on, but that's not the discussion here.

I still say that for all of the welfare cheats, all of the tales of millionaires in rent controlled apts, the fact remains that the social systems that we set up to help those in need, still do that, and that is a good thing. I fully agree that those systems need a serious overhauling, but the vast majority of those in those programs are people who need help and support, not the cheats and get-over artists, and those people are housed and clothed, which is what a civilized society is supposed to do for the least among us.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at February 12, 2009 12:51 PM

It really is a scary thought, I agree.

But on the other hand, maybe Quinn, Rangel, and Patterson will screw things up so badly for NYC housing and subsequently the local economy that folks will vote Republican in the next city elections, and the rent laws will be abolished completely forever.

Imagine NYC with no rent laws. It would be "like a breath of fresh air. . ."

Folks with limited means could actually find an affordable apartment for rent at the same time that private landlords could actually CHOOSE their own tenants and not be forced to put up with lunatics living in their buildings.

Our housing market would be like Chicago's or Boston's. It would actually work for everybody.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 12, 2009 12:57 PM

Thanks, Benson. I appreciate your thoughts, and to be honest, my wife also complains about "the union-mentality crap" just like Montrose's relatives. Dave is also correct about "the benefits, vacation time and pension [being] enviable." But having myself worked for businesses large and small including two Fortune 500 media companies, "do-nothing" bureauracracy and waste aren't limited to the public sector.

Posted by: East New York at February 12, 2009 12:58 PM

My brother-in-law has a few choice words about the union too. Agree, dittoburg. The deifiniition of "rich" is a variable. Still, I have such a hard time listening to friends in that tax bracket talk about how they bought 15 pairs of an expensive shoe in every color because they liked it so much, and then hear them omplain about how poor they are. Maybe our real problem is that as a society we are geared to believing we can never have enough stuff. Lousy philosophy if you ask me :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at February 12, 2009 12:59 PM

Ok Montrose,

Than put a reasonable low income threshold on rent stabilized apartments . . . maybe 75k/yr. You claim those with stabilized apartments "NEED THE SUPPORT." BS, most of them are just taking advantage of amazing deals and could find other housing elsewhere if they had to.

A 250k/yr rent stabilization income threshold, or whatever your buddy in pandering politics, Quinn, espouses is pure insanity.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 12, 2009 1:01 PM

There should be income limits on rent control and stabilized. Agree, IB- maybe 75k is a fair limit. 250k is outrageous.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 12, 2009 1:09 PM

Bxgrl - I read a quote, I think from a debt counsellor trying to get a laugh among a not-pepared-to-see-the-funny-side crowd, along the lines of "Whoever dies with the most stuff wins right?"

Posted by: dittoburg at February 12, 2009 1:12 PM

Did they laugh ;-)

Posted by: bxgrl at February 12, 2009 1:19 PM

Montrose, what do you really think about Christine Quinn getting a cheapy apartment, in the city, when some nurse who makes how much, pays free market and lives way out in Queens and has a long commute to her job? Christine Quinn can afford to pay free market. she can afford to buy a house in New Jersey! she can probably afford to catch cabs everywhere too. She is hoarding an apartment that should go to someone who is much needier than her. I agree there needs to be a safety net to help people, but Christine Quinn on $140k/yr does not need our help. She's taking away resources that could go to someone who really needs them.

Posted by: katebushwick at February 12, 2009 1:25 PM

Montrose doesn't care about anyone's private property rights except her own. If we forced her to rent her downstairs apartment at half its market value she'd go nuts screaming murder in the streets.

She's one of those people who think people deserve things for doing nothing.

Working hard, earning a living, and being independently responsible for oneself aren't important to folks like Montrose.

According to her mentality, being poor "entitles" you to free stuff paid for by tax payers. Why work, if you can have it handed to you on a silver platter?

Artificially low rents subsidized by other private citizens are a "basic human right" according to folks like Montrose.

GIMMIE, GIMMIE, GIMMIE. . . . it's sickening.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 12, 2009 1:45 PM

They've got silver platters at the welfare office?

Posted by: dittoburg at February 12, 2009 1:55 PM

I've never been to the welfare office.

I suppose they don't really have silver platters, but I'm sure that will change along with Obama's generous tax payer's debt financed stimulus package.

Silver platters for everybody, hurrah!

Posted by: IronBalls at February 12, 2009 2:00 PM

Kate, I don't particularly like Quinn, and I certainly don't approve of her RE dealings, as well as those of Rangel, et al. It's hypocricy of the worst kind, as they not only can afford to pay more, but they have CHOSEN to be public servants, and should be held to higher standards.

Iron Balls, I never said any of what you are accusing me of, you've taken to speaking for me, since I didn't speak any of this myself. Let me put it out there SLOWLY and CLEARLY, so you will understand:

I've never said anything about what people can charge for their apartments. My comments yesterday on property rights are in reference to building owners who neglect, abandon and warehouse much needed buildings. That has nothing to do with rent control, rent subsidy or millionaires in CPW aparments. I do not have a downstairs apartment. So there. Your "facts" are already wrong.

I am all about hard work and responsibility. I was raised that way, I work like a dog, and I defy you to find anything I've ever written that goes against that. You can't because I've never said it. I also believe everyone should have the same mindset.

I also never said that people are "entitled to free stuff paid for by tax payers". WTF? Making things up because you want to see them there?

Let's cut to the chase. What I do believe in is basic civilized human rights. I believe in the most advanced and "civilized" nation on earth that everyone, deserving or not, is entitled to a roof over their head. I do not believe that life in the USA should be a Darwinian struggle where only the strongest, or the wealthiest, or best connected, or English Speaking, or native born, or the right color, religion, educational background or preferred sexual orientation get to survive, and it's tough shit for everyone else.

I believe that there are some people in this country for whom life is a series of bad breaks and no luck. They do not have education, or decent jobs, they may have made very poor choices in partners, they may have too many children, or children with special needs. They did not have parents who supported them, or schools and religious institutions that nurished and gave them direction. They made bad choices, missed the line for just about anything good, and will probably never get any higher than where they are now.

Those people need this society to help them. If my tax dollars do that, it's fine with me. The alternative is much worse - starving, desperate people with nothing to lose coming after the rest of us. It's cheaper to house them than to jail them. It's better to try to save those who want to rise up out of that pit, than to squash them underfoot. If not for the sake of shared humanity, then for your own well being.

The system is flawed. Let's fix it. Let's eliminate as many of the cheats and scofflaws and enablers as possible. But helping the helpless will always be a good thing. I don't really care if that makes me unpopular with you, Iron Balls. It's not all about money. If you are going to misrepresent me, at least get it right.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at February 12, 2009 2:25 PM

For the life of me I can not understand why vacancy decontrol and perpetual stabilization - i.e. no income limit, no rent limit isnt a viable compromise. Why should a private LL be subsidizing the initial rent of a new renter (who may not even need a subsidy). Yet given the relative inelasticity of supply, it seems fair to protect existing tenancy with rent increases that are not subject to the wild excesses of fashion, exuberance and greed.

Whats the problem - how is this not "fair" and also politically viable since existing tenants are protected - is there that big a constituency of people looking for new rental apartments below fair market value??

Posted by: fsrg at February 12, 2009 2:39 PM

MM, you keep believing America is the most civilized on earth. I just don't buy it!! I can't see how the US is somehow more civilized than any of e.g. the Scandanavian countries. God forbid the US would drop the death penalty and institute free healthcare, free higher education and other extravagances like one month's paternity leave...

I do totally agree with:
"I believe that there are some people in this country for whom life is a series of bad breaks and no luck. They do not have education, or decent jobs, they may have made very poor choices in partners, they may have too many children, or children with special needs. They did not have parents who supported them, or schools and religious institutions that nurished and gave them direction. They made bad choices, missed the line for just about anything good, and will probably never get any higher than where they are now."

But at the same time I do have a sympathy-failure with those who continually make the same bad mistakes, those who carelessy have way more children than they can support etc. I also realize its a vicious circle - the poorly educated have large numbers of children, which they are less able to support, etc etc, who end up poorly educated themselves...

Posted by: dittoburg at February 12, 2009 2:59 PM

Hi Montrose - I didn't mean to sound aggressive. I enjoy many of your posts.
but you can probably add New Zealand, Australia and Austria to that list of more civilised countries. Who I'm sure all have their own Christine Quinns.

Posted by: katebushwick at February 12, 2009 3:10 PM

Montrose,

Of course I don't want those people on the streets or in jail either, and I'm fine with some of my tax dollars going towards supporting the neediest amongst us. But why should the neediest amongst us be allowed to procreate so we who work have to fork out even more money to take care of their children and their children's children as well?

Maybe they should pass a law that if you accept welfare/public housing, you must agree to go through a medical procedure whereby you can't have any more children. Otherwise it's just a continuing cycle of government supported poverty and it's not fair to tax payers.

FSRQ,

The local Democrats on the city council are just trying to appease the rent stabilized voting block who are scared that as their numbers decrease through vacancy decontrol, they won't have the votes in the future to keep their arcane rent programs alive. It's all political. Of course nobody really cares about rent laws that protect millionaires.

It's all about pandering to the lowest common denominator -- getting something for nothing and not having to ever do a lick of work in the meantime.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 12, 2009 3:17 PM

"Maybe they should pass a law that if you accept welfare/public housing, you must agree to go through a medical procedure whereby you can't have any more children."

Jeeze Louise. You're not exactly a bundle of laughs are you?

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

Well, it did work in China!!!!! And look who's the superpower now!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 12, 2009 3:46 PM

Yeah, and then we can start executing CEOs found guilty of malfeasance.

Bring me the head of Angelo Mozilo!

Posted by: SnarkSlope at February 12, 2009 4:10 PM

We could put Thain in a $85,000 antique iron maiden.

Posted by: dittoburg at February 12, 2009 4:12 PM

So IronBalls then EXPAND Rent Stabilization to all rental apartments - with Total Vacancy decontrol and no rent limit - then there will be no "loss" of stabilized apartments. And hell most "luxury" Manhattan Rentals are facing rapidly declining rents, not increases so those LLs wont protest to loudly.

I get the idea of political pandering - I just do not understand expanding the system in a way that will DEFINETLY lead to blight and abandonment

Posted by: fsrg at February 12, 2009 4:16 PM

I like the cut of your jib, ditto.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at February 12, 2009 4:19 PM

I know a landlord of a 10-unit walk-up on the Upper West Side who learned that his $300/mo rent-controlled tenant was actually primarily living on his 90 acre estate in the Catskills. This tenant wanted $1 million to hand over the keys to this rent-controlled apartment. The landlord spent three years in the court system, demanded a jury trial, and won a 6-0 verdict last year.

Such abuse is rampant, and wins like the above are very rare, and can take upwards of three years (and mucho in legal fees) even when successful.

Rent regulation breeds corruption, clogs courts, and drains otherwise productive humans.

Posted by: gsnyder at February 12, 2009 4:43 PM

gsnyder,

I couldn't have said it better myself.

These rent laws are a total farce and even those folks fortunate enough to have on of these deals knows it.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 12, 2009 8:08 PM

I agree with montrose morris. i think I have a unique perspective to add here because I work helping people in housing court. The vast majority of people I see every day are hard working poor people who simply can't make ends meet, even with rent stab. They do not have more than one or two children (mostly).
I believe everyone in our society has a right to have a home. Most of the people I see are one missed paycheck from being homeless. They are the people who watch our children, care for our elderly parents and clean our houses. They already live in bad neighborhoods (think East NY) and the rent is already taking most of their paychecks. I for one do not want to live in a city of only rich people.

Posted by: kaylas at February 12, 2009 9:17 PM

Kaylas,

That's fine. It's your choice to move somewhere else if you wish.

I'm sure those East New York landlords are struggling just as much as the down and out tenants you help.

Can you imagine trying to turn a profit running apartment buildings in a neighborhood like that? It's nearly impossible. I know because I've owned low income housing in the past.

Everybody should have a roof over their heads, I agree. But if they can't afford NYC, there are other cheaper places they can turn.

It's called the free market and it works everywhere else in this country. What's so special about NYC? Why do you think our rental housing stock is so darn crappy?

Posted by: IronBalls at February 12, 2009 9:29 PM

« Thursday Links Open Thread »

February 12, 2009

Speaker Quinn Bears Bad News for Real Estate Crowd

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions