Democratic Assembly Passes Pro-Tenant Legislation
In a potentially huge set-back to New York City landlords, the New York State Assembly passed a new package of legislation yesterday that strengthen’s rent regulation across the state and gives more authority to the pro-tenant New York City Council. According to The Times, the new rules would “essentially return to regulation tens of thousands…
In a potentially huge set-back to New York City landlords, the New York State Assembly passed a new package of legislation yesterday that strengthen’s rent regulation across the state and gives more authority to the pro-tenant New York City Council. According to The Times, the new rules would “essentially return to regulation tens of thousands of units that were converted to market rate in recent years” and reduce the amount a landlord is allowed to increase the rent upon a vacancy from 20 percent to 10 percent. It’s a matter of fairness, said Jonathan L. Bing, an assemblyman who represents the Upper East Side. We’re trying to give people a way to live out their lives in the neighborhoods they’ve been calling home for decades. On the other side of the coin: This is going to be very devastating, said Joseph Strasburg, president of the Rent Stabilization Association, a group that represents landlords and real estate agents in the city. New York City is the last big city in the country that has any strong form of rent regulation. And at a time when we have an economic recession, when rents are actually going down, this will put another nail in the coffin. In our opinion, the government should spend more time and resources making sure landlords adequately maintain their buildings and abide by the legal terms of their leases with tenants and less time trying to fight the laws of supply and demand. After all, rents are already coming down anyway.
Assembly Passes Rent-Regulation Revisions [NY Times]
Photo by Bobble
mopar – a socially fair and economically viable model, therefore never to be adopted in NYC
Very funny, fsrq.
fsrq- let me reiterate- I don’t think these changes are right or good for anyone. That doesn’t mean that both landlords and tenants couldn’t do with an attitude check.
christohper- indeed you don’t like tenants because you seem to think it should be your way or the highway. Frankly, the Who raises valid points from a tenant’s perspective. I’ve had great landlords and rotten ones. I’ve had landlords who freaked if they heard you laugh on your way up the stairs and landlords who bent over backwards to give you a break when things were tough. You need tenants but you want to lct like the old Laird of the Manor. It doesn’t work that way in this country so if you think its just a matter of telling tenants to move if they don’t like it, I suggest you move to a country that still has a caste system, because that high-handed I take your money and I can tell you how to live your life attitude doesn’t work for anyone and your attitude is exactly why laws protecting tenants get passed. Just as a tenant’s living problems are not yours, so are your financial problems not theirs. Works 2 ways.
The system has to be fair to both sides- I have no idea if doing away with regulation will hurt or help. I don’t think anyone does until it happens. Speculation is no guarantee of anything.
CMU – please come off your self-righteous soap box – this isnt an issue of not accepting RS as part of the business model. This is a matter of investing millions of dollars and countless years of work – accommodating the law in your business model – and then having the politicians – drastically CHANGE the law in the middle.
and the ultimate point is – that with a change this drastic current owners (who cant change their mortgage payments, oil costs or employee expenses) will be forced to change their business plan in one of 2 ways – huge cut backs in investment/service or to walk away – either way the city and current tenants lose – albeit tenants will likely be able to rent more crappy apartments for less.
I’m a landlord, albeit of a non-rent controlled house (2 units.) If I were to look at a rent-controlled property, I would accept it as part of the business model. All of you who have a story of how someone is gaming the system… there’s always someone gaming the system and it does not prove anything.
As bxgirl said it “If you don’t like having tenants- go into another line of work.” (of course, this is on par with telling tenantsto move if they don’t like it…)
As ironballs says: OWNERSHIP (his caps) seems to trump everything else here. Perhaps the sense of entitlement is actually by the owners, not the few rent-controlled bad-apple tenants.
“Any landlords on here who agree with this new regulation?”
Christopher – I’ll bite. When I owned a two-family, I recognized that it was only the artificial scarcity generated by rent regulation that allowed me to rent out a shitty basement apartment for a then-outrageous $1800 a month.
Rent regulation helps tenants in regulated units and owners of unregulated units, and hurts tenants in unregulated units and owners of regulated units.
Interestingly I find this argument/debate has two distinct sides:
-Landlords and renters against regulation
-Renters for regulation
I always laugh at people who tell me I’m wrong and try to convince me they are right where their side of the debate has only their constituents, while the other side has members of both constituencies.
We’ve seen landlords and renters against it, I’m just curious if any landlord is looking forward to it.
Any landlords on here who agree with this new regulation?
Just a “hhmmmmm” kinda thought…
I’m no Republican, but I have to agree with IB and Benson – the Rent Control system is patently unfair to landlords, particualrly small landlords (as I have been). When I was renting, I busted my a** for more than 15 years, paying market-rate and STILL saving enough to buy my own place. It pisses me off when I see childless couples who make about what I do (above average salary) living in fancy Manhattan apartments and paying 1960-era rents! Just incredible.
IronBalls…you’ve got two really valid points there.