Council Gunning for Oversight of Rent Regulation
A bill seeking to give the City Council more control over rent regulation is expected to be introduced to the state legislature within the next couple of weeks, according to an article in this morning’s Sun. The bill would mean that the City Council gets to vote on who sits on the Rent Guidelines Board,…
A bill seeking to give the City Council more control over rent regulation is expected to be introduced to the state legislature within the next couple of weeks, according to an article in this morning’s Sun. The bill would mean that the City Council gets to vote on who sits on the Rent Guidelines Board, a nine-person body currently appointed by the mayor. In addition, the bill would significantly revamp how the board determines rent hikes because landlords’ net incomes would be considered. Perhaps most significantly, the bill would mean that tenants won’t have to renew their leases as long as they pay rent. Councilmember Letitia James (right) says she plans to introduce a resolution asking the legislature to pass the bill, which has the support of tenants’ rights groups. Frank Ricci, president of the landlord-interest group the Rent Stabilization Association, says his organization opposes the bill. “This legislation ignores the reality of rising taxes, rising fuel prices, and rising water rates, to make this a more political process than it already is,” he says.
Bill Would Give Council More Control of Rent Regulation [NY Sun]
Photo of Councilmember James by threecee.
Why is it you only complain about controls on rents? Why not complain that city fixes cab fares also?
I agree Letitia Jones is very attractive in this pic.
even economists at the nation’s most liberal universities acknowledge that rent control/stabilization is terrible policy, which tells you something.
Considering that every other day some council member is caught in a scandal it seems absurd that we would give them a vote in anything more. They are all crooks. Letitia James will work for only part of her constituents on this – and it won’t be the landlords who are getting $82/mnth for a park slope 2 BR.
If the city council gets its hands on the rent control board, kiss it all good-bye.
We would revert back to the old “Moscow on the Hudson” days.
10:04
That’s the whole point. No one bothers accepting rent stabilization unless they get money for it. That isn’t the way to have a successful, dynamic economy.
Just look at new construction over the past 20 years. Condo development has exceeded rental apartment development by a huge margin in terms of units brought to market. Event though what you say is true, developers are far more interested in building for-sale product.
Helping the poor and middle class afford housing simply shouldn’t be the developer’s problem. Developers build housing. They shouldn’t become agents for the NYCHA. Forget the crazy bond financing and tax breaks. If someone needs help to pay for their home, simply have the government give them a check. The people end up paying for it one way or another – the process should just be more transparent.
At the very minimum, 2 things would make rent stabilization much less damaging to the housing market:
1) Peg the rate of increase to local CPI indexes, particularly regarding fuel costs. The data is clear and obvious – the political bickering should not be part of the equation of determining the appropriate rental rate increase. What killed housing in the city in the 1970s was double digit inflation and 3% per year rental rate increases. Landlords predictably just walked away from their buildings or stopped maintaining them.
2) Allow apartments to be rented at market when they turn over. In many cases, the 20% vacancy adjustment is still not high enough. Fine, protect existing tenants – but the corrupt game of scoring a rent regulated unit at a below market price is just wrong. The bribery alone should turn anyone’s stomach who is concerned with justice.
9:23 and 9:38 why don’t you crack an Econ 101 book? Apparently Tish never has. A much better was to provide housing for low income persons is to provide subsidies supported by all taxpayers rather placing that burden only on property owners.
I can’t wait to vote Tish out.
I find the Cato institute makes a lot of sense on a bunch of subjects.
There is no more real threat of rent-stabilization be added to new buildings than there is of sudden ending of rent-stabilization.
You are free to build any new building without rent regulations.
Bigger question is why do so many developers of new buildings sign onto rent-stabilization (tax breaks) if it were so terrible?