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
“Bottom line is landlords are not the enemy. They are small business owners. They should be allowed to run their business as they want.”
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
And If they cannot run a building then they should sell it! If they remove RS tomorrow the rents would CRASH all over NYC!!!!!! They would first start by kicking everyone out, then these people would flee NYC, Then the rents would go to the moon (like now), then the Asshead Landlords would start competing for tenants and the rents would CRASH!!!!
If they removed RS that would be a GOD damn disaster for this City!!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end…
Oh well, jumping in with both feet here- I grew up in the Bronx. My family lived “the Bronx is burning.” The Bronx was redlined-that, not rent regulation, was the reason for all the arson. Taxes were to high for what LL’s could rent apartments for- the South Bronx was POOR! The City was POOR! POOR areas were the first and hardest hit. Let’s not make one of the worst episodes of arson in NYC about tenants and rent control- it would be a lie.
I’d also like to point out that there was no exscuse for arson. None, zilch and zip. People died, property was destroyed for no good reason and firefighters and cops, as well as tenants suffered greatly. Rent stabilization as the reason for arson? Only if you are a psychopath or a career criminal. There was no excuse – many landlords simply walked away. At least they had some semblance of ethics. The rest- arson. What does that say about landlords and tenants?
Slick,
It’s all about pleasing their constituents. They don’t care about anything else.
In private, some of these politicians will openly admit it.
One positive note is that Malcolm Smith seems to be willing to hold the line on the Senate on this – unfortunately he is politically very weak and the pressure from the typical hacks may overwhelm him – this may be Pattersons true test -> is he going to govern based upon whats (truly) best for the state/city or based on politics – I am not optimistic……
IB;
I used to be a landlord, and one of my tennants was a “professional NYC tennant”, and I’m sure you know what that means.
Typically the heat was set in that building so that her apartment was at 72 degrees. She wanted it at 74, and I refused. My response to her was that she should look elsewhere for an apartment that offered such a service. Rather than trying to improve her situation in such a manner,she tried to “kill my goat”. She used to call the NYC heat complaint line EVERY DAY,just to harass me. One day I was so fed up with this waste of my tax money that I called a supervisor in the bureau, and told them that I was willing to write a letter to them with a standing offer to come by my place AT ANY TIME to check the heat, so long as they stopped the harassment. They could not accept my offer. The law requires that they follow-up on each and every of the tennant’s complaints.
My tennant was pleased in her efforts to try to kill my goat,even though it did noting to help her achieve the living condition she wanted. That is where I learned first-hand about this mentality.
I am sympathetic with both sides in this debate.
However, I dont see why this was such a high priority for the NY legislature. Why would they want to hurt the NYC real estate market in the current environment?
The problem with rent regulation is that it requires individual property owners to subsidize the rent of individual tenants, regardless of how wealthy the landlord and tenant are.
If you believe that affordable housing is a common good, it should be paid for by the broadest possible base. Use tax revenues to give out Section 8 vouchers, build public housing with strict income limits, etc. But removing certain privately-owned apartments from the market, and allowing those apartments to be passed down as family heirlooms, does very little in terms of allowing people of modest means to live here, but does a great deal to engender the political loyalty of those who have, or aspire to, a rent regulated bargain.
What, I’ve changed my mind. You’re not funny. Just a bitter asshole.
We could go back and forth on this all day but quite frankly you are to much of a belligerent, offensive, ignorant douchbag to have a rational conversation with.
Bottom line is landlords are not the enemy. They are small business owners. They should be allowed to run their business as they want. Many are not out to make a fortune, they are just trying to improve their quality of life and provide a service they enjoy and have pride in.
Bensen,
I agree with you 100%. Great analogy.
Isis is definitely the peasant without the goat.
Instead of working hard and saving up for her own goat, she desperately wants her neighbor’s goat to die.
Reminds me of an NYC landlord I know who’s currently in court with a non paying tenant.
To take revenge for being taken to housing court, the non paying tenant (AKA Isis) is going around to all the other buildings this landlord owns and reporting violations that don’t exist, just to create problems for her landlord.
Only in NYC . . . a city where property rights are trampled because the coddled masses have the vote, can tenants get away with this type of harassment without any repercussion of any kind.