Rent Board Chief on Shifting Onus from Landlords
The Observer ran an interesting interview yesterday with the head of the Rent Guidelines Board, Marvin Markus, that lays out some of the common-sense problems with rent control and stabilization. If we as a society deem it worthwhile to subsidize certain people (and clearly there are lots of reasons to do so), then the cost…
The Observer ran an interesting interview yesterday with the head of the Rent Guidelines Board, Marvin Markus, that lays out some of the common-sense problems with rent control and stabilization. If we as a society deem it worthwhile to subsidize certain people (and clearly there are lots of reasons to do so), then the cost should be borne by society as a whole not individual landlords, argues Markus. “There are poor tenants, they should be protected, but the individual owner is not the one that should protect them. The population at large clearly should be the ones footing the bill,” he says. And how would be do that? “One suggestion is a rent tax/surcharge of some limited amount, on all rents in the city … and all co-op and condo charges in the city. … It’s very important for the city of New York that there be a mixed income base—from an economic standpoint; from a social standpoint—and we want to make sure, I want to make sure, that that continues.” While landlords make easy political targets, it’s hard to make any rational arguments in favor of the current system: Lifetime entitlements makes no sense at all; nor does a system that dis-incentivizes landlords from maintaining the housing stock.
Rent Board Chief Markus Pleads for ‘Rationality’ [NY Observer]
Photo from the Tenement Museum
FSRG,
Nothing I said assumed a minimum rent under rent stabilization currently, don’t understand where you got that from.
“I love how people blame rent control for all of NYC’s problems. I was born and raised here- I’ve been through all of it. Anyone who thinks rent control was the sole reason for its problems doesn’t know NYC history very well.”
QOTD!!!!!!
The What (Born and raised here too!!)
Someday this war is gonna end…
Etson you do not understand how RS works – RS does NOT set a minimum rent – so WHY doesnt marketrate tenants need RS – if a “middle class” person moves into a 3br apt paying $2100 – and then the next year the LL wants to raise the rent to $4000, that tenant will likely have to move – is that “fair”? when across the street you could have someone making $169K a year paying $1000 for the same apartment only facing a 4% increase.
And yes LL with RS buildings with below market rents will make $ on a change in the law (just like a landowner on 4th ave benefited when the area was upzoned) -but you may have forgotten that this “windfall” is pretty heavily taxed –
and your point of a home owner “being aware of the risk” is nice – but for LLs there is also the risk that the RS system will be adjusted to completely destroy the value of the property as well (look at some of the bills in the state legislature – are you against those as well????) – so since the risk is in both directions the real point is that when the law doesnt work and is being perverted – it should be changed it just seems like your revulsion against LL making more $ is blinding you to the perversion of the RS system as a whole.
Yes BxGirl a RS tenant is potentially subject to small rent increases year to year – but otherwise the effective difference between the RS and RC are small (except for the paperwork)
“And rent control nearly destroyed NYC in the 1970’s. Lessons are never learned.”
How would you know that????
“o you know how many apartment building owners in NYC and the suburbs quit the business and sold them to coop convertors because they couldn’t make a decent profit? Or torched them in the South Bronx and East New York?”
The 70’s was a different time! Poverty and unemployment ruled the day and it was not like people had access to credit and money. Those days if you wanted something you had to work for it and money had value, not the “Hot Money” you have today!
“Had there never been rent control and rent stabilization there would be hundreds and hundreds of thousands of more rental units on the market. One-bedrooms in Manhattan would be $1,500 not $3,000.”
That’s right stupid!!! Please someone answer my question!!!!! What’s going to happen when all those Condos come online???!!! TOREN, AVELON, FORTE and the PENCIL FACTORY dust up???????!!!! I think it will put pressure on rents and remember you was depending on that to pay your mortgage. 5 months dumbasses….
The What
Someday this war is gonna end…
tyburg6- that’s also the case for any of the government subsidized serivices. How about that woman and her son who are being charged $1500.00 a month for their room in a shelter? How is that helping her get back on her feet? It’s 60% of her present income – she’ll be in that shelter for years. Talk about outrageous policies.
I love how people blame rent control for all of NYC’s problems. I was born and raised here- I’ve been through all of it. Anyone who thinks rent control was the sole reason for its problems doesn’t know NYC history very well.
Kensingtontonka- my parents were immigrants too and also worked like dogs, and owned a co-op. Not every rs/rc tenant is a leech, and not everyone got their apartment through spurious means. I know this is the prevalent myth of the rc leech but fine if you want to believe it. Note: RC/RS tenants pay rent. I certainly did- and yes in the 70’s loads of landlords walked away from their buildings- for many reasons.But to think that no rent control or stabilization would have meant cheaper apartments today is without basis.
benson- nothing in this city has done anything for the middle class. That’s the problem- from the government on down, the middle class has been ignored. And again, rc/rs is not the reason for it. When developers put up luxury housing in a working class neighborhood and try to charge luxury rates,- that’s your answer. Its maximizing profit with as little outlay as possible. Luxury housing was all the rage- not affordable housing. And when people said “affordable housing” it was subsidized housing that the government paid through the nose for, not housing for the middle class.
Another interesting thing this city has is the concept of “affordable housing” … The rent $$ and the income caps are a very interesting formula. They seem to actually REQUIRE you to live with hardship.
Here, you can have this apartment, but don’t get a better paying job or take that $1.23/hr raise you were offered!!
FSRG,
Mr Markus’ plan is a tranfer of wealth from the government to the landlord (and some tenants) of a rent stabilized building, because it would guarantee them the maximum increase from all tenants, and ‘true up’ all tenants to a current level of rent.
There is no need to ‘stabilize’ current market rents – in fact if market based rents were stabilized, it would end up being a subsidy to bad developers in downturns, because hey would get a guaranteed level of rent for converting condos into rentals
As for your question “if you buy a home in a non-landmark, limited height restricted district -(like most of Park Slope until 2004) and a developer wants to build a 15 story building next door to your row house – should the Govt not consider zoning changes’
– my point was in that situation you should be aware of that possibility when buying the house, and that the price of the house relative to one in a landmark district would reflect this risk.
fsrq- I knew that tenants residing in the apartment have the right to renew the lease but pay an increase (rc tenants don’t until the 3 person succeeds and then I think it is 20%. ) But I don’t think the lease renewal is as ironclad as the rent control one. And rs tenants don’t have as much protection as rent controlled ones. I was an rs tenant for many years- my rent went up each time. By the time I moved out, I was paying maybe 200$ less than the market rate of other apartments in the building.