« Tuesday Blogwrap Council Subcommittee Hears Case of PS 133 »

June 24, 2009

Wednesday Links

City Seeks New Powers in Fight Against Homelessness [NY Times]
Despite Pleas for a Freeze, Stabilized Rents to Go Up [NY Times]
Rent Hikes OK'd As Board Squabbles [NY Post]
Strike Threatened at City's Biggest Power Plant [NY Daily News]
Another Burglary at 55 Washington Street [Brooklyn Paper]
Post-Game Analysis of ESDC Meeting [AY Report]
Partial Building Collapse In Bed Stuy [WPIX]
Photo of Green-Wood Cemetery by bklynflea.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10265

Comments

I thought rents were coming down EVERYWHERE. Oh well.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 24, 2009 8:37 AM

"Utility Workers Union of America, Local 1-2, who work at the Ravenswood plant in Long Island City, Queens, said yesterday that owner TransCanada's latest offer of a 1% wage increase for each of the next four years is "unacceptable."

"We've asked for more than that, nothing big, but a raise in line with the cost of living, and they're not budging, plus they're asking for givebacks on health benefits," union spokesman Joe Flaherty said."

Ummmm, the last I looked, the cost of living (CPI) was negative. Also, everyone in the country is paying more for healthcare. The union members' sense of entitlement is despicable. Lock them out. Don't budge TransCanada.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 24, 2009 8:41 AM

It's funny that rent stabilized tenants wanted a rent freeze even though property taxes have soared along with every other expense.

I predict next year landlords will get a huge increase since their profits are getting killed right now due to high vacancy rates and plummeting rents.

My stabilized tenants still pay less than half of market rent on average, so it's not as if $30 or $60 increases are going to bring them anywhere near parity with market rents . . . but I still need to continually repair and upgrade my 100+ year old tenement buildings.

Lucky whining leaches!

Posted by: IronBalls at June 24, 2009 8:58 AM

Declining home prices should stabalize as inventory continues to be reduced due to collapsing buildings.

Posted by: Biff Champion at June 24, 2009 9:02 AM

Biff,

That really may be a possibility. New York City's housing stock is largely composed of prewar buildings supported by old bricks that are rapidly turning to dust.

Do you think that $30/mo or $60/mo rent increases will help much to pay for major structural repairs that are needed in the coming years?

This city will is in for a major wake up call as more and more old buildings fall down. . .

Posted by: IronBalls at June 24, 2009 9:08 AM

I often disagree with Iron Balls on things, but not this issue. This is what amounts to a free ride undesrved by many gaming the system. A major accounting of the incomes of these tenants is necessary. This is an example of this city at its worst.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 24, 2009 9:14 AM

IB, I agree with you that the numbers don't add up. The rents aren't sufficient to make required repairs and unfortunately I really do think we are going to see more and more of these collapses. Let's just hope something is done before more serious injuries and deaths occur.

Posted by: Biff Champion at June 24, 2009 9:17 AM

oh please, "union members' sense of entitlement is despicable." - how about article that citi is giving big raises - DOn't want to lose 'talent'....otherwise known as don't want the corporate management to take any paycut for mess they have created- all using taxpayer money.
Want to talk entitlement - just peak into any corporate boardroom.

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 24, 2009 9:18 AM

Interesting thought Iron and Biff. I just don't get how wood houses in Amsterdam stand for over 300 years while our keep on collapsing. Is it because they're not looked after? Do we have buildings in NYC that are still standing for say 1850s (excluding single family that is)?

Posted by: Kensingtonian at June 24, 2009 9:23 AM

Are you asking if there are any buildings in existence that have been built before 1850? I grew up in Marine Park, one of the "newer" built up parts of Brooklyn (1930's). There are at least 3 wooden houses from the colonial/Revolutionary period (late 1700's), many of them having went long periods of little-to-no upkeep. As for Labor Unions DIBS, they created the American Middle Class, Market Derivitives destroyed it.

Posted by: Joe from Brooklyn at June 24, 2009 9:39 AM

Property taxes are soaring? Not everywhere. Tax rates are going up but due to decreased assessed value, the property taxes in the apt. building I live in has gone down 20% from last year and is down over 30% from two years ago.

Posted by: greenwood at June 24, 2009 9:40 AM

Joe, I am asking about apartment building, not single houses.

Posted by: Kensingtonian at June 24, 2009 9:45 AM

greenwood, really? my buildings' property taxes went up 20% and we tried to challenge the assessment in court and lost. Courts don't want to hear these cases now because the city is trying to squeeze as much money out of co-ops as possible to make up for the obvious losses in tax revenue.

Posted by: Kensingtonian at June 24, 2009 9:47 AM

"Courts don't want to hear these cases now because the city is trying to squeeze as much money out of co-ops as possible to make up for the obvious losses in tax revenue."

Is not the Judicial system independent from the city government????

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 24, 2009 9:51 AM

I don't think people in Brooklyn needed apartment buildings until the second half of the 19th Century, for most of Brooklyn not until the last 50 years of the 20th. Victorian
Brooklyn more resembeled the Dutch countryside (complete with Dutch people!) than the City of Amsterdam

Posted by: Joe from Brooklyn at June 24, 2009 9:51 AM

Does it count as a one family if the pigs sleep in the house?

Posted by: Joe from Brooklyn at June 24, 2009 9:54 AM

Is not the Judicial system independent from the city government????

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 24, 2009 9:51 AM

I would hope so but not in my experiences. The law firm that we retained to represent us in tax assessments (their specialty) said pretty much the same thing. They used to have a very good track record and all of a sudden, they barely win any cases. Thank god they only require payment when they win, which is a good deal for us.

I also have a very funny personal experience in court when I was younger. I had to go to court for disorderly conduct summons. The judge was literally bargaining with the people for fines. It was surreal.

Posted by: Kensingtonian at June 24, 2009 10:10 AM

Kensingtonian: Really. Not every owner's net property taxes are going up. My landlord wanted to raise our rent this year but when I pointed out the large decrease in his taxes and stories in the media about NYC rents dropping about 10% across the board, he backed off and left the rent as is.

Posted by: greenwood at June 24, 2009 10:10 AM

right Joe. but if a 50 apartment building was put up in NYC in say 1920's on a sound foundation, how long do you think it'll stand before collapsing?

Posted by: Kensingtonian at June 24, 2009 10:11 AM

Greenwood, I hope that's the case when we get re-assessed because I really don't want my co-op to increase maintenance solely because of tax increases.

Posted by: Kensingtonian at June 24, 2009 10:13 AM

Renters who luck onto rent stabilized apartments are not gaming anyone for the most part. They have nothing to do with whether or not an apartment falls under rent-stabilization so it makes little sense to demonize the tenant for the problem the city and state create. And many people who do live in those apartments are far from rich. Rent control is a different issue and considering how abused it is, needs to be totally revamped or just done away with. And in all fairness, landlord costs in general go up. The fairly small rent increases that get voted are are not going to break most renters and the whole adversarial us vs them thing is nothing but destructive to everyone.

Apartment buildings and flats were being constructed in the the 19th century. There are many many pre-war apartment buildings all over the city. While I have no good answer to Kens question as to why our buildings seem to fall down more than the much older ones in Europe- my guess is that in Europe they care more. We're more careless because we don't believe in preservation and reuse, to the extent the rest of the world does. But I also think in the long run older buildings are better constructed. Yes they need upkeep but there are buildings over 200 years old still in use and not deteriorated while much new construction is being patched and fixed and patched and fixed again. I would love to see the reaction of a victorian craftsman to the claim made by builders today of "quality" construction. I'm sure they would laugh themselves silly.

Posted by: bxgrl at June 24, 2009 10:56 AM

According to PropertyShark the building on Myrtle that collapsed was built in 1969.

Posted by: kutterkan at June 24, 2009 11:17 AM

This is a terrific photo.

Posted by: East New York at June 24, 2009 11:25 AM

"He said one of his tenants, a man who he says earns $90,000 a year, lives alone in a three-bedroom apartment. His rent is $696 a month.

“His rent is probably going to go up 25 bucks,” Mr. Petrov said, adding: “Tenants feel they have this entitlement to affordable housing, but it’s on the sacrifice of the landlords’ back. It’s not fair.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/nyregion/23rent.html?scp=2&sq=rent%20stabilization&st=cse

Posted by: East New York at June 24, 2009 11:28 AM

Maybe in Europe, since by and large there isn't widespread rent control/stabilization, landlords make enough income to properly upgrade and maintain their buildings. (Just a thought. . .)

I had 100+ years of roofing on a six story tenement building ripped off and changed last year. The flashing on the parapet walls was scraped off to reveal bricks literally crumbling to dirt. We tore down the worst sections and replaced them, but if we had really done the job properly, all the parapet walls and entire top floor of the building probably should have been taken down and replaced.

How many hundreds of thousands would that cost? Do you think the rent controled lady paying me $150/mo or the stabilized lady paying $650/mo living on the top floor would chip in for the extra cost?

Not to mention, where would they live during the year that it took to rebuilding the top floor of the building? I'd have to pay for them to stay at a hotel in the meantime, according to the idiotic rent laws, since their rents are too low for them to rent anywhere else.

Rent control/stabilization is a moronic clusterf*ck that will have worse and worse consequences as time goes on.

Posted by: IronBalls at June 24, 2009 11:36 AM

Yet families earning up to 125,000 will qualify for subsdized housing in AY.

I happen to think there should be an income qualification but in truth, the landlord is projecting his own resentment onto the tenant. How many people- honestly- would move out of a large apartment with a great rent? Everyone wants a good deal- why should a tenant act any differently than anyone else? I don't blame the tenant- the blame is squarely on the system that doesn't take tenant income into account.

Posted by: bxgrl at June 24, 2009 11:39 AM

"Not to mention, where would they live during the year that it took to rebuilding the top floor of the building? I'd have to pay for them to stay at a hotel in the meantime, according to the idiotic rent laws, since their rents are too low for them to rent anywhere else. "

Is that really the case? YOu would have to pay for them to live somewhere else? That's totally outrageous.

Posted by: bxgrl at June 24, 2009 11:43 AM

That's right bxgrl. . .

That's why government rent controls on private property are such an idotic idea.

Folks rarely leave since their rents are so damn cheap, even when they happen to be making huge incomes.

If the government wants to give people cheap apartments, that's it's perogative, but taking private property rights away from private owners is straight out of the Communist Manifesto, not 21st century America.

Posted by: IronBalls at June 24, 2009 11:48 AM

I'm not 100% sure about the hotel thing, but it's what I've heard. . .

Posted by: IronBalls at June 24, 2009 11:51 AM

ironballs- how is it that Landlords have not been able to get changes enacted? I would think landlords would have a very powerful lobby?

Posted by: bxgrl at June 24, 2009 11:51 AM

nobody took your property rights away. You bought the multi-family as investment property knowing that that type of investment is regulated in NYC. And cost of that investment
should have reflected the price you paid. And if it didn't you're the fool and want to change the rules to bail you out. Typical capitalist.
About time we re-reviewed the Manifesto....maybe there are ideas in there should be taken into more consideration.

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 24, 2009 11:54 AM

bxgrl,

Who do you think has more sway with politicians, 25,000 landlords or 1,000,000 rent stabilized tenants?

The crazy rent laws are only in existence in NYC because of the nature of local politics and the political pandering necessary to get elected.

Even you should agree with me on that!

Posted by: IronBalls at June 24, 2009 11:55 AM

I need to ask everyone here a question- Why was Dave allowed to use the "N word" without any repercussions from the Brownstoner readers???????!!!!

I will await your answers...

The What (Reaches for the Rocket Launcher)

Someday this war is gonna end...

"Yes, Kens, "faggot" is as bad as "nigger." Both are typically used in the same tone and for the same effect. Both will get you an upgrade to a hate crime when assault is involved. Oddly though, both are used by repective members of both groups amongst themselves.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 23, 2009 11:25 AM"

Posted by: Return of The What at June 24, 2009 11:56 AM

Yeah Pete, but originally the rent laws were enacted to protect families from being evicted while fathers/husbands were off fighting WWII. They were meant to be TEMPORARY.

It's a rational assumption for anybody buying a regulated building since WWII to assume that eventually the
"temporary emergency rent laws" will end.

The fact that leaching tenants have been able to keep the "temporary emergency rent laws" alive for so many years is insanly unfair to landlords no matter when they bought their buildings.

Posted by: IronBalls at June 24, 2009 12:00 PM

Who do you think has more sway with politicians, 25,000 landlords or 1,000,000 rent stabilized tenants?
I would expect the tenants to have 40 times the clout of 25k landlords. Or do you think being landlord should give you oversized say in matters? Why not just bring back monarchy and feudal system.

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 24, 2009 12:09 PM

"It's a rational assumption for anybody buying a regulated building since WWII to assume that eventually the
"temporary emergency rent laws" will end."

"Who do you think has more sway with politicians, 25,000 landlords or 1,000,000 rent stabilized tenants?"

Although I agree the system is unbalanced, Petebklyn is right. The owner makes an investment with knowledge of the associated costs. I'm a landlord myself, but I can't disagree w/that.

Posted by: East New York at June 24, 2009 12:10 PM

wow Iron, that's scary what you said about your tenement building. That means our 1953 co-op at some point will need to go through complete restructuring and relaying of brick. I hope that's in 30+ years when I am out of there with my own house to worry about.

Posted by: Kensingtonian at June 24, 2009 12:12 PM

ironballs- there is a great deal of unfairness. On that I certainly agree with you. But I do object to landlords demonizing tenants (full disclosure- am a tenant and did live in an rs unit for a long time)as leaches. Sure there are many who abouse the system but blame the system. Would you, as a consumer, go into a store and buy a big ticket item without researching it and looking for the best price? Tenants are consumers. And I think landlords would be surprised at how many tenants really are struggling, and not making 90,000 a year.

My main point is that someone needs to rethink the whole approach because by making tenants and landlords adversarial, the pols and agencies keep the spotlight off of the people who could and should be making the changes. While we're each pointing fingers at the other, the officials are hoping our mutual antagonism covers their butts- they play both ends against the middle. Yes- there are 1,000,000 tenants, but landlords can exert a lot of political pressure too. But keep landlords and tenants fighting with each other, and the officials think all they need to do is sit back and watch.

Posted by: bxgrl at June 24, 2009 12:19 PM

I bought an apartment building with rent stabilized tenants. Of course the purchase price reflected that fact, but yet I will whine about it endlessly on the Internet.

signed,
NickelNuts

Posted by: SnarkSlope at June 24, 2009 2:23 PM

Actually, there are far more than 1,000,000 rent stabilized tenants since many apartments are occupied by more than one person.

And it's not just my buildings that need extensive costly brick repairs, it's the majority of NYC prewar housing. Ask any roofer/masonary repairman and they'll tell you it's the same for all prewar tenements across the city.

Without major investment over the coming years, the rate of building collapse is certain to increase rapidly.

I sure as hell wouldn't spend big bucks on a prewar coop or condo. At least with a townhouse, you own all the land and not just a fractional share.

Posted by: IronBalls at June 24, 2009 2:44 PM

Snarkslope,

When somebody you know living in a prewar tenement building has the roof cave in because the landlord couldn't afford major structural reconstruction, I bet you won't be making the same sarcastic posts on Brownstoner.

Posted by: IronBalls at June 24, 2009 2:49 PM

« Tuesday Blogwrap Council Subcommittee Hears Case of PS 133 »

June 24, 2009

Wednesday Links

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions