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
Hey what – YOU ARE A MORON – please surrender your (worthless RE license) you can not get an MCI for plastering and painting a hallway – and if you could – which you cant – buildingwide MCIs are paid back with a 1/84th rent increase (not 1/40th) AND you can not impose an MCI increase that raises rent greater than 6% in any single year.
Please stick with your Macro-economic – “the End is near” arguments – as you clearly no ZERO about buying or running RS housing in NYC (now or in the 70s) – and since the legislature may help ensure your sky is falling rhetoric actually comes to pass (no reason to diminish your potential prognostic victory with stupid distractions that show you to be an idiot)
so, now that I’m a landlord I get screwed again. great…
Rent regulation in New York is a joke. I’m all for helping families or individuals that don’t make enough money to afford New York rents but no one has been able to explain to me how these laws actually help them. 10 years ago I was a recent immigrant and all I could find was a room in Bushwick for the same price someone I know (making 5 times what I was making) was paying for a 2 bedroom on the UWS…
What,
You can’t charge an MCI for repairing and painting hallways.
Why do you thing the public hallways in most NYC tenement buildings are so shitty?
Christopher,IB and FSRQ;
You ever hear the old Russian joke about the two peasants and the gennie? It goes something like this: there are two peasants in a village, one owns a profitable goat, the other doesn’t. One day a gennie appears to the peasant who doesn’t have a goat, and tells him that he will grant him one wish for whatever he wants. He immediately replies: “I want that SOB’s goat to die”.
That is exactly what you are dealing with here, and you see it every day on Brownstoner. Developers are greedy SOB’s – they should be regulated to extinction. Landlords are greedy SOB’s – they should be taxed to extinction. It’s tough to argue economics, risk or the responsibilities of property ownership with them.
As I said above, it might be better to let it run its course. A few years of “Jimmy Carter-ville” might provide some clarity.
“Sure she has no mortgage, but on a building her size and in her neighborhood her taxes are a plenty and up-keep is huge.”
Really? Then she should sell it because she has a RETARD for a Grandson! If can not make money with a apartment building with no mortgage then sell it and put the funds with Madoff Investments LLC.
” few years ago she re-did her hallways, just patching and painting and the like. $20k”
Then she should apply for a MCI and raise the rent. 1/40 th of the cost can be put to the tenants.
” A new roof is she needs it, another $20k+. These things add up.”
She can apply for a grant with HPD. They will give her the money for the roof and she will not have to pay it back. Also Dumbass (I don’t know why I’m helping you) She can qualify for a Tax Reduction of she is over 62, check into it Retard and get back to me.
II’m willing to bet here DHCR is jacked up and maybe can charge more rent. This is a common mistake among Landlords.
“Look it up – the deed transfers are on the ACRIS system and back then the mortgage docs sometimes contained a RR attached.”
I said pre MAB days you Asshead!!!!!
“Viable buildings never went for 3x the rent roll – unless they were absolutely near abandonment – EVER – not even in the Bronx c.1978”
Hey Chrissy can you help your fellow Asshat understand the dynamics of NYC in the 70’s and 80’s, Thank you…
The What
Someday this war is gonna end…
When the government restricts return on any particular asset, that asset will be allowed to deteriorate until its value is low enough that it earns an acceptable return. If there is no value low enough, the asset will, one way or another, end up in the government’s hands and become a burden on taxpayers. Whoever used the old saw “market failure” earlier in this discussion has successfully memorized a popular socialist catch phrase but does not appreciate the law of unintended consequences. If you force landlords to rent units at below market rents, the affected housing stock will slowly deteriorate. The remaining housing stock becomes prohibitively expensive, and new renters find it difficult or impossible to get into the below market units. The below market units effectively become a one-time property transfer from landlords (who actually took risk in buying and spend money for upkeep and repairs) to whoever had the dumb luck to be in a controlled apartment when the rules took effect. The controlled housing stock is tightly clutched in the hands of a less and less deserving population until it has to be pried from their dead hands, while over time the people who actually need affordable housing stock find it impossible to find because everything that isn’t being held until death is overpriced.
The City Council’s actions are bizarre.
Property taxes on multifamily rental buildings in NYC are 29% of gross income — extraordinarily high.
The vacancy rate is skyrocketing and market rents are plummeting due to this terrible economy.
What the hell are they thinking? They want landlords to support city tax revenues through insanely high property taxes while at the same time they want to lower rents and increase costly, inefficient bureaucracy?
Reminds me of the Jane’s Addiction song Idiots Rule . . .
IRIS – who can LLs “open their books” – too? Its very simple, if the business is not profitable people will sell (and then when they cant sell – abandon the property) – there is no great LL/Tenant god in the sky that you can “open your books” too.
It is already happening (deservedly so) at the buildings bought on unrealistic rent increase speculation – like Sty Town, Riventon, etc… BUT if you radically change the rules of the game – especially in these times – many of the properties bought with realistic expectations (based on legally following the current RS laws) will become unprofitable – there will be no great meeting, or prayer session with LL/Tenant gods high priest – people will just slowly walk away, the banks will have even more bad debts and good people will be forced to live in worse and worse housing.