Rent-Stabilization Hike: Lose-Lose?
At the conclusion of the typically rowdy Rent Guidelines Board meeting last night, the board authorized increases of 4.5 percent on one-year leases and 8.5 percent on two-year leases for the city’s 1 million rent-stabilized apartments. The hike was the largest one in almost two decades, but many landlords were unhappy with the decision, saying…
At the conclusion of the typically rowdy Rent Guidelines Board meeting last night, the board authorized increases of 4.5 percent on one-year leases and 8.5 percent on two-year leases for the city’s 1 million rent-stabilized apartments. The hike was the largest one in almost two decades, but many landlords were unhappy with the decision, saying operating costs (especially fuel charges) have skyrocketed. “I am not satisfied with what we have at all,” said one landlord quoted in the Sun. According to the Times, the Rent Stabilization Association, which represents thousands of landlords, had been pushing for increases of between 10 and 15 percent. The board gave another concession to landlords in the form of a supplemental monthly rent increase of $45 for one-year leases or $85 for two-year leases for tenants who have lived in stabilized units for more than six years. Tenants, of course, expressed frustration with the board’s decision. The point we’re making is that this is a charade, Michael McKee, the treasurer of Tenants Political Action Committee, is quoted as saying in the Times. This was a done deal from the beginning. Before the meeting last night, Council Speaker Christine Quinn held a rally in support of a bill before the Legislature that would restructure the Rent Guidelines Board (which is solely comprised of members appointed by the mayor) and deny rent increases for one year on any unit with serious violations.
Board Backs Rise in Rent Up to 8.5% [NY Times]
Rent Increases Are Approved For Stabilized Apartments [NY Sun]
Photo by richarddavis.
So 12:18 how many below market renters do you allow to live in your house? Since you’re crowing about helping people out you can do your part too right?
There are at least two separate issues here:
(1) Should the needy [however defined] have their housing subsidized
(2) Who should subsidize it
If the answer to #1 is yes, the answer to #2 should be the community as a whole. Deciding, through rent stabilization, that landlords are solely responsible for paying for social justice in housing out of their own pockets is like fighting hunger by legislating how much grocers are allowed to pay for food (while the wholesalers they buy from are still allowed to charge as much as they want).
If the landlords aren’t happy with regulations, let them get out of the business. I was born in this city as were my parents and children and am lucky enough to own a house. All you who crab about the right to live in the city should think about who keeps your city running: Who operates mass transit, teaches your kids, hauls away your garbage, cleans your office buildings, fixes your streets. They have just as much right to live here as you do.
Only the arrogant think that what happened to Gwbrubaker can’t happen to them.
It’s amazing how heartless, and uncaring so many NYers are. Who cares if a few wealthy New Yorkers have a cheap apartment – why punish all the rest.
bxgrl – please tell me what non-monopoly business does the Govt tell private buisness people – “you make enough, we arent letting you raise prices”?
Yes – Landlords make $ on RS buildings – if they didnt they would abandon them – why would someone risk capital and work hard for no (or little) return?
My greatest objection to the current RS discussion is that rents of private buildings – should be tied to the incomes of individual tenants or landlords.
So if I am an efficient landlord who makes timely repairs and re-invests conscientiously – the (new) RS board will see that I have low expenses and good profits and will tell me – no rent increases for you.
BUT
if I am a lousy landlord, totally inefficient and reactionary and have high costs – the (new) RS Board is going to see low or no profits and say – ok you can have a rent increase
how is that fair – to the landlord or the tenants (why should a tenant subsidize an inefficent landlord with higher rents?)
and what about long-term vs. short-term ownership – so if I have owned a property for years and have a low cost basis and therefore am (finally) making good money – the (new) RS board is going to say no rent increases?
But to the new owner who is loaded with debt and expenses – the (new) RS board will grant an increase?
Sounds ridiculous
and conversely
If I am tenant in a RS apartment who pay 30% of my income for rent and then I work hard and maybe improve my education and thereby get a raise – the (new) RS board is going to say you now have to pay more in rent (thereby disincentivize advancement)
and to the lazy worker who always stays stagnate – the (new) RS board is going to have a rent freeze?
This is the perversion that you people are asking for….
gwbrubaker- I wish you well. I work for nonprofits too. Little money but at the end of the day you feel like you did something good.
Am I still paying your rent? did you move out?
THE FREE MARKET AND DEREGULATION WORK!!!
Just look at:
Cable and media,
Oil, gas and coal industries
mortgage and credit industries
Securities.
GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND THE FREE MARKETS!!!
I lived in a rent-stabilized apartment for years- but it turned out is was now all that much lower than the market rate apartments in the building, for whatever reasons. I agree that there should be better income guidelines for those who are living in them, but simply telling people they should move because NYC is the most expensive city in the country is a very short-sighted way of dealing with the problem. but if you can afford market rate, it’s wrong for you to be rent-controlled or stabilized. It’s also wrong for tenants to ignore the fact that landlord expenses have greatly increased.
The post on what happened in Boston is the reality. And the fact of it is, if being a landlord weren’t profitable, all those buildings with rent-controlled and rent-stabilized buildings would be abandoned. but landlords get tax abatements and credits. It’s not like they’re eating it. Taxpayers pay for tenants and landlords. Owners constantly post the benefits of owning and the value of their property- it’s a little hard to believe that rent control and stabilization is destroying them.
Hi ya Asshats. I think this rent “thing” will not matter much in the upcoming months. People don’t have any money let to pay their rent!
You have the Asshat “Brigade” paying more rent to live like Mexicans! You have 5 people staying in a 2 bedroom apartment and Landlords condone this type of behavior. Why you ask? Because these junior Donald Trumps have to find a way to pay that Mortgage. This crap is destroying our city! Regular people who work for a living are being priced out by Asshats everywhere. 1500.00 a month for a 1 bedroom in Bed-Stuy, Please…
But I think the upcoming crash is going to take care of this problem. Yep Asshats, economics will be the remedy to this Mutant Real Estate Asset Bubble…
The What (The Left Nut or Right One..)
Someday this war is gonna end…