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
“I do believe however, the state has no right to mandate entitlement burdens on the backs of private owners without giving them some sort of subsidy”
Crownlfc so then you are AGAINST RS/RC because as it is currently construed it is affording an “affordable housing” benefit to many people and being subsidized by the LL.
This is exactly what Markus is saying in his interview……
It’s really a double edged sword. Landlords know they are losing money off of RC/RS apartments – but know the system can’t be abolished because over time, rents would drastically drop due to the 1 million market rate apartments hitting the market.
So what’s the logical solution? Tax people who are already paying too much money on rent?
This really irks me.
Crownlfc,
I disagree. Landlords like me are not the ones who would benefit if rs/rc were terminated like it was in Boston. Surely rents overall would drop big time with hundreds of thousands of rental apartments hitting the market for the first time in decades.
Free market renters — those who weren’t lucky enough to score a $500/mo stabilized two bedroom floorthrough on the Upper Westside are the ones who would benefit from LOWER RENTS.
In other words, MOST PEOPLE would benefit. . . sure landlords with a majority of rs/rc tenants would too, but other landlords, like myself, with few rs/rc apartments, would make significantly less money as a result of lower free market rents.
ironballs- and you are being an assh*le why? You attacked me on things I never said- benson made assumptions on things I never said. If that’s your idea of logic is a damn poor one.
And I repeat again, ironballs- I have no problem with an income requirement. I would appreciate you reading my posts before attacking me for what I did not say.
I’m sure it would free up tens of thousands of apartments- whether or not the rents will drop because of it, my attitude is we will see.
bxgrl,
Polemicist and Bensen both make logical arguments.
What logical argument have you made? I’ve read all your posts and haven’t spotted a single one.
First off, these Landlords either knew what they were buying when they bought these rent-stabilized buildings, and for others, especially uptown or in the outer boroughs, even with stabilized rents, they still had significant vacancies. GENTRIFICATION CHANGED EVERYTHING. Affordable housing may not be a right but I would guess that even most stabilized tenants probably pay more than the recommended 30% of their salary in rent, plus it’s in any vibrant city’s interest to make affordable housing available to its working class. I do believe however, the state has no right to mandate entitlement burdens on the backs of private owners without giving them some sort of subsidy – its almost always a disaster as we’ve seen in agriculture and healthcare. The irony of all those tax breaks being given to developers for building condos instead of affordable rental units. The largest constituency of New Yorkers are renters, yet the politicians have always been in the pockets of developers and landlords. It’s time to stand up, get some of those subsidies and tax breaks to build or convert all of those half finished projects into affordable housing.
bxgrl,
If there was a low income requirement, tens of thousands of previously occupied rental apartments would flood the market causing rents to drop big time.
Defenders of RS/RC are loath to let even a single apartment fall out of their clutches because their low rent deals will only survive as long as they have the majority vote.
Oh, welcome back poley- coming from the likes of you (obviously a hitler fan) thats a compliment. Now- do you ctually have anything intelligent to say or are you going to continue to perpetuate the same reading incomprehnesion of benson and ironballs. Or perhaps you’d actually like to pretend to have a brain and read the entire thread?