Forum
« Help Remodeling prewar building In response to "How the Hell" »
November 23, 2007
How the hell do/did apartments become rent-controlled or rent-stabilized in the first place?
Given tonight's blithely written Forum post from a tenant who wants to see how much she can shake down her landlord for in order to free him up to rent his ground-floor space for retail purposes ("Rental prices for retail/commercial space in Greenpoint"), it got me wondering: How the hell do apartments become rent-controlled or rent-stabilized in the first place? How is it that an apartment in a 3-family brownstone is RC, while another apartment right below it is not? Did owners volunteer for this stupidity in return for tax breaks or something?
And is it ever possible for an owner to somehow wrestle their own property back from these insane restrictions?
We've all seen it a hundred times: Rich old lady lives in RC classic six on Park Ave. for a grand a month, passes it down to her kids, her nephew, her butler, whoever, while all the rest of us pay higher rents thanks to the resulting scarcity. Nauseating. How many of us know ANYBODY deserving their RC apartment?
Comments
There are several people who deserve to keep their rent control apartment.
How about people with disabilities, widows, widowers with limited income and also the people who never won the lottery?
Most people don't hoard rent control pads on Park Avenue.
You watch too many movies.
.Maybe you should get out more and look at the world around you.
Rent control will phase out eventually.
P.S.
I am a landlord
Posted by: Ysabelle at November 23, 2007 9:44 PM
OP, here. Right, Ysabelle--I bet you're a landlord who loves price controls on rents. Whatever.
Every single person I have ever met who has an RC apartment had a sweet career, a sweet bank account, and often a vacation house in the Catskills. And they are hanging onto those apartments with whatever means are neccessary, for obvious reasons--they've allowed them to hurdle past everybody else. Like Barry Bonds and his steroids.
However deserving someone might be of a little help, answer me this: Why is it fair that the little guy who owns a small apartment building has to take care of that person, while his neighbor can rent the same apartment out for whatever it's truly worth?
Back to the original question: HOW were these RC/RS apartments initial designated?
Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 10:10 PM
If you think rent control laws are bad in ny try living in egypt.
People are renting palaces for about $6. a month.
Meanwhile their stock exchange is going thru the roof and there is alao a building boom going on.
Just like ny.
Posted by: Ysabelle at November 23, 2007 10:11 PM
to OP..
I do not have a sweet career or for that matter a sweet bank account and I hate the friggin catskills. (no offense)
Did you inherit the apartment building or did you buy it with tenants already there?
Posted by: Ysabelle at November 23, 2007 10:21 PM
I you have access to a computer you can find the history of rc/rs in NYC. There are many law articles about it, as well as those written for the gneral audience. I wouldn't buy a building with rs apartment, but I understand the politics behind it. What are looking for in your post? For everyone to tell you you are right?
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at November 23, 2007 10:29 PM
For the love of god, I'm looking for the answer to a simple question: How is it that some apartments became RC/RS, while others did not?
Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 10:32 PM
Rent Control was instituted in NYC during WW2 because of rent gouging by landlords. It covered all rental apartments in existence at the time in the city, I believe. In the 1970's the city overhauled the system, ending rent control, and replacing it with rent stabilization. So this would cover all larger buildings in existence up to approx. 1975. Even when RS was introduced people in RC apts could stay however, and under RC and apts could be 'passed on' to close family members who presumably were living in the apts when the primary tenant died. There were also various provisions for apts being released from RS, many of which have been discussed here. I don't know if all new construction over a certain number of units falls under RS, maybe someone else on the board does. What you younger brownstoners don't realize is how many rental became coops and condos in the past 30 years. In the 70's the vast majority were rentals and the city lost many rental apartments to these conversions so they too came off RC.
Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 10:54 PM
rent control and rent stabilization is based on the unit not the building.
Posted by: Ysabelle at November 23, 2007 11:01 PM
Buildings with eight or more apartments in NYC are rent-stabilised. This simply means that the rent is raised by the government a certain percentage each year, and the tenants cannot be evicted unless they do something wrong. In my case, for my rent-stabilised apartment I get: an apartment in which the back door to my small yard has fallen off, I have to bail out the bathtub everytime I take a shower, the toilet doesn't work, there are no locks on the front doors to the building, there is virtually no heat, rats wake me up at night when they leap onto my bed (this is true), and my landlord is putting a bar into the apartment across the hall. AND I WANT TO STAY. Why? Because I have nowhere else to go. He wants me out, which means he'll probably get me out. But back to your original question: as far as RC apartments are concerned, there aren't any anymore because all a landlord has to do is spend a certain amount on renovation, which allows him or her to then up the rent beyond the RC limit, at which point the apartment is freed from all rent-control. And now back to me. My landlord offered me an unspecified amount of money to get out, and I am trying to figure out if this amount could possibly be enough to allow me to get the heck out of Dodge and hole up on a mountain somewhere (NOT the Catskills) where no one will try to evict me. But I doubt it. I'm glad you're not rich.
Posted by: elizabeth3 at November 23, 2007 11:22 PM
Let's all go to South Fallsburg and join an ashram
!The OP is invited also
Man. what a dumb ass inquiry.
The person who started this thread must be a trust fund bohemian.
not a blood and guts new yorker.
Posted by: Ysabelle at November 23, 2007 11:49 PM
Thanks, Guest 11:54 pm., for that. Didn't realize RC was once a blanket policy.
Ysabelle, thanks for giving me the fantasy of being a trustafarian, if only for a millisecond...
Elizabeth3, I'm sorry for the crappy maintenance on your apartment, but isn't that another symptom of why it doesn't work to force a property owner to let you live in his building for a tiny percentage of what it should be earning for him? If you owned the building, maybe you'd be cutting corners, too? I'm just saying. It's frustrating.
Wish y'all well.
Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 12:26 AM
I can't help posting. As a long time NYC landlord, the topic always makes me sick.
A significant portion on my rent regulated tenants cheat the system and either rent out their cheap apartments for profit or keep them because they're so cheap and really live elsewhere.
It's nearly impossible to evict these people, since all they have to do is move back to "cure" the situation, so as a landlord, my only recourse is to offer them substantial amounts of money to move.
Most do not take the money and it's perfectly understandable. Even for 100k where else can they get a spare apartment in NYC? Where else is the rent less than the average maintenance on a coop or condo?
Why should wealthy people (ie folks making over $200k/yr) be allowed to keep RS and RC apartments as long as their rents are less than $2000/mo?
My expenses and property taxes have skyrocketed to the point that my income has been drastically reduced. Why are rich moochers allowed to live basically rent free in my apartments while I'm working hard to keep their buildings clean and in good shape?
The whole thing sucks.
Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 7:44 AM
The RC/RS laws were appropriate for a certain time and place in New York's history. Unfortunately (like unions in the 20s), times have changed but the laws haven't. The result is a real estate market significantly out of whack in New York, and in Detroit the auto unions have run the state's economy into the ground.
In our small co-op, we have 5 rent controlled tenants. 1 is an absentee renter who has twice beat us in court. She rents out her 3 br apt to a rotating cast of ne'er do wells. Yet it's nearly impossible to prove she doesn't live there. Of the other 4, 3 are upstanding folks who are either elderly or are quiet and hardworking. The other family rents out rooms, by the month near as i can tell. I think that's probably a representative sampling.
So say at least 40% of RC tenants are cheating the system. It incenses me that the city has blithely allowed abuses like this to happen. I have no appetite for kicking out old or poor people, but if you're going to use an RC apt. as an ATM, you should be tossed into the street.
Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 9:55 AM
I'd just like to point out that the vast majority of people who rent in NYC (way more than 60%) are not wealthy. This is a classic straw man. There is a HUGE population of poor and working class people who need minimal legal rights (and rent stabilisation is hardly an onerous burden on a landlord; it's basically just trying to keep landlords from acting like lunatics when given the chance of getting even more money). Rent control, I agree, no longer makes sense, but that is totally different from rent stabilisation and the two should not be confused. Meanwhile, my own landlord is not neglecting the building because he cannot afford to keep it up. He is rich as Croesus. He is neglecting the building so that his tenants will move out and he can raise the rents. And it works. The question I have for all the landlords out there is, How much money is enough for you? Would all the money in the world satisfy you? As I always understood it, it would appear naively, rent is paid to a landlord to cover the costs of maintaining the renter's apartment, helping with taxes/mortgage, and reimbursing the landlord for the time he/she spends keeping the building working. I don't believe it was ever meant to be a ticket to vast riches. Have mercy.
Anyway, I forgot to point out that the whole point is moot since rent stabilisation barely exists anymore anyway, and will soon disappear entirely. Soon the landlords and coop/condo owners will have the whole five boroughs all to themselves. So goodbye and good luck.
Posted by: elizabeth3 at November 24, 2007 3:07 PM
Elizabeth3 and the poor and widowed should get a job (and some insurance), like the rest of us. Do you go to the store and take what you want because you can't pay for it? No, because private business owners - like landlords - do not owe you anything in this country. They already pay taxes on their income which the gov't can and does use to support your lazy or unfortunate asses. If you need welfare, sign up, but don't expect private citizens to support you.
Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 6:18 PM
Not that I want to enter this fray, but there is no way to know Elizabeth3's or anyone else's situation. Compassion is important, too.
Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 9:51 PM
Elizabeth3 you are a moocher and an ignorant one at that.
Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 9:54 PM
There is simply not going to be agreement on this issue. Given that rent stabilization has been in place for decades, anyone who bought a property with it in place and now is complaining that his return is not sufficient is looking for his own gravy train. he bought at a discounted price, but now wants to exchange his "seconds" purchase with an first class property. Don't buy low, expect me (the taxpayer/voter) to divert a river to better your property then accuse others of mooching on private citizens. If you don't like your return on your investment. sell and invest your money elsewhere.
The talk about unions, welfare, etc is just another indication that this is really just an expression of class warfare. Seems to me landlords have done a pretty good job at gutting rent stabilization and perhaps they should keep a lower profile rather than insisting that we eliminate it altogether (the most important right rent stabilization gives tenants is the right to an automatic renewal).
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at November 24, 2007 10:04 PM
People who call people ignorant are the most ignorant of all.
I hate people who are narrow minded and judgemental.
This website is full of them.
But that is why this is a public forum.
It attracts all walks of ;ife which could be interesting...........sometimes.
Posted by: Ysabelle at November 24, 2007 10:22 PM
elizabeth 3: stop thinking society owes you. It doesn't owe you anything. Get a job and stop whining.
Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 10:24 PM
Yes much better to call people narrow minded and judgmental than to call them ignorant. When insulting people it's a good idea to spell check first.
Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 10:29 PM
"I hate people who are...judgemental."
Do you not see the hypocrisy of your own statement?
Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 11:49 PM
To 11:49
I am glad we are not dating.
I come from the heart.
You come from the dicktionary.
Posted by: Ysabelle at November 25, 2007 12:01 AM
And your heart is judgmental, but you tell yourself you are not while accusing others of being so. Guess we'll all know your house by the glass facade.
Posted by: guest at November 25, 2007 12:12 AM
Can't get a job. Too sick to work. Disability pays my $1200 a month rent. That money comes from the taxes I paid when I was working. Not exactly taking what I want from a store because I can't pay for it. Where did you get the idea that private citizens are supporting me? If I depended on them I'd be long gone from this earth. But I do love the statement that the "poor, unfortunate, and widowed" should "get a job like the rest of us." And what job would that be? Landlord? It seems to me that your tenants support you, and not the other way around. Actually, all I want is to be able to continue living in my apartment. Unfortunately, with several notable exceptions (namely Isabelle and Putnamdenizen) on this heartbreaking and hilarious thread, I can tell you with total certainty that all you landlords live in buildings made of glass.
Posted by: elizabeth3 at November 25, 2007 12:35 AM
Proper landlords need gainfully employed tenants, unless they're renting in a not-for-profit capacity. Poor and disabled people in need of subsidized rent levels and legal protection require government housing.
Posted by: guest at November 25, 2007 10:04 AM
eilizabeth3 - buildings w/ 6 apartments or more are subject to RS. sorry for your present state but your landlord is not representative of all.
the majority of property owners, especially in the outer boroughs, are working class people who take pride in their property by keeping it well maintained & rely on their rental income to this end. however, this is extremely difficult to do when taxes increase by 20%, insurance by 12%, water by 11% & heating by 45% but rental income increases by 5%.
putnamdenizen - those who own rs building did not buy at a discount. this thinking applies to all the new buyers out there.
everyone forgets that owning these building is a BUSINESS. as such owners should be able to make a profit. economics 101 says whatever the market may bear. every landlord can't collect exorbitant rents - the amount is determined by the location, quality & size of the apt.
regulation does more harm than good.
as a property owner i have a RS tenant who gets a new caddy every 3 yrs & he just completed a reno of his apt, complete w/ stainless appliances & a huge flat screen. why should this single individual pay $300 for a 3 bdrm apt which he "inherited" from his mother 20 yrs ago??!!!
there are many in need of affordable housing but because of regulation, those that need it are rarely the ones to get it. why should private owners who leave their 9 to 5 to go home to fix toilets be responsible for them?
Posted by: guest at November 25, 2007 4:29 PM
If your tenant did a complete renovation of his apartment without your permission you now have grounds to evict him. You know that, right? And did you buy your apartment building before rental stabilization went into effect? If not, then surely you figured in the possible restrictions in return in the purchase price, didn't you? If you don't like the return on your property, sell it and invest the money somewhere else.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at November 25, 2007 7:04 PM
obvioulsy you've never tried to evict a r/c tenant. at this point he is approaching the golden age of 60 - the age at which he has add'l prtotections & is a tenant for life no matter what he does.
r/s laws went into effect after WWII, so no i did not buy b4 r/s went inot effect.
the issue is not whether i like the return on my property but whether r/c & r/s STILL works the way it was intended. it obviously doesn't b/c eliz3 is on a fixed income & pays market rent while my gainfully employed by the city r/c tenant pays practically nothing for 3 bdrm.
i manage over 100 apts in working class communities & this is the only r/c tenant. out of the 100 plus he is the least deserving of this benefit.
hopefully i'll outlive him...
Posted by: guest at November 26, 2007 3:58 PM
1 out of 100. Can't be bothered to evict him even though he has violated his lease. Knew about it when you bought it.
Next topic.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at November 26, 2007 7:40 PM
"can't be bothered..." - spoken like someone who has absoultely NO knowlwdge of how brooklyn housing court works!!!
now next!
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 8:46 PM
&:40 - he won't have a lease if he's rent controlled.
Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 7:54 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.