Hellish Landlord Drawing Protest in the Slope

Allentown PA is only an hour and fifteen minutes by bus from Port Authority. Rents in Allentown are dirt cheap and you can buy a historic brownstone for well under 200k. A friend of mine bought one for 80K a couple years ago and just sold it for $140K.

What makes long term NYC tenants so special? Nothing. CHANGE THE LAWS! MAKE THINGS FAIR!
For the most part, this is a democratic capitalist country, and I hope it stays this way.

I’m a NYC landlord. I’ve gotten small MCI rent increases from the rent regulated tenants for replacing the boiler and roof. I’ve also done lots of cosmetic work (halls, washing of exterior, carpeting, etc.) that I can’t collect increases for. About half of my tenants still pay about one third of the free market rent.

In order to get increases for work in their apartments, the tenant needs to agree, which they very rarely do, because they don’t want their rent to increase at all.

I have a tenant in a rent stabilized apartment who is a pretty well known New York chef. She travels the world for business and pleasure and makes at least $100k a year. Her rent is $650/mo for a $2500/mo apartment. In order to deregulate the apartment, the legal rent has to be above $2000/mo and I have to prove that she’s making over $200k a year. It’ll take at least 25 years for her legal rent to hit $2000/mo and by then I’m sure she’ll be retired.

It’s true that I, like most living landlords in NYC bought my building well aware of the rent laws. However, I bought assuming the laws would eventually be changed because they are a NYC relic that are economically unfair to landlords and the general population at large.

And lastly, to Liekiller, to quote Mr. T:

“I pitty the fool.”

no retard the board adjust EVERY TWO YEARS not every one year, as you incorrectly claim in your last post. You can go to their website right now and see for yourself. Yes they do get an increse for things, sheesh go to their website, you can even download the form. You can’t even get something like that correct, and you want to talk about numbers? What a joke. You are clearly the one who does not a darn thing about this and you are clearly just making stuff up.

sigh, once again you refuse to answer the question of why should landlord be allowed to break the law when they no longer feel like dealing with rc and rs and instead create a straw-argument laced with juvinile taunts that you prop up with links to websites authored by right-wing koo-koo bananas groups or housing assocaitions that have a vested interest in distorting the truth. You have not offered a singel scientific study by a dis-interested person or group. The first time you gave three websites. One was an artilce from the NY times which did not even argue the merits or lack of merits of rc and rs. I still don’t even understand why you linked that. Brilliant. One from the cato instutite, and the other from a simialar group which were links to artilces that contained obvious and factual falsehoods such as “landlords can’t get an incraease in rent if heating costs go up” (paraphrase), which is not true. In NY landlords DO get a rent increse for such things. These articles simply lie, and is not proof of anything, despite your contnetion that everyone says it, so it must be true. Yeah, and germans all thought hitler was great too but that did not work out very well did it?
The second batch of websites is no better (did you even read these?) One, I needed a password to get into and so who knows what it says, the other is from a guy not at MIT but the Manhattan Instutite (yeah REAL objective there) and his whole argument is that people who live in rc or rs apartments are already paying the market rate anyway and so rc and rs don’t matter, if it went away rents would hardly change in any direction, that its basically a wash. Thats your “its a done deal” arguement?
The third is from a housing association bent on raising rent, leveraging landlord positions, and geneally are hostile to anything not allowing them to do whatever they want and their article cites such insightful stats to bolster their argument as “areas around boston had higher vaccanies than boston did when rent control was in effect” Really? Duh, no kidding, a city has more people than a crappy suburb, how astounding. That proves EVERYTHING!!!! YOU WIN THE NOBLE PRIZE GENUIS!!!!!
I also really enjoy the effort you made to artifically narrow that discussion and then to make a few inflamatory comments as well, (hence my hostile reply to you) while at all times avoiding answering the question of why landlords should be allowed to break the law. Good job.
So since we are on the subject of boston, which ended rent control, here are some numbers for you to consider:
While it is true that new consturtion has built new buildings, it has not helped matters contrary to what your supply-voodoo economics would have us belive.
In a study conducted by Harvard University the data demonstrated that Boston has become one of the most expensive and least affordable palces to live and that the average rent went from $825 dollars when it was rent stablised, to $1,700 after rent controls ended. Gee rents went up, what a suprise, what happened to your theory there loudmouth? I thought they were supposed to come down?
According to the Mass. Assocation of Realators, Boston has a vacany rate of less than 1%. Why? Because even though there is new apartments going up they are just replacing the old buildings got knocked with new buildings at higher rent, thus not resulting in a higher net of housing, thus making rents actually go up.
The Donohue Institue at the Univertisy of Mass found that evictions after rent control ended increased 64% and that homelessness doubled. Now Mass. is trying to bring rent control back.
Seesh, I am going to go back to craigs list where at least the b.s. is funny and creative.