Stopping Big Rent Hikes at Ex-Mitchell-Lamas
The state has closed a loophole that allowed landlords to enact huge rent hikes upon exiting the Mitchell-Lama program. Under the loophole, owners of Mitchell-Lama rental buildings constructed before 1974 will no longer be able to raise rents to market rate by claiming that leaving the program amounts to a unique and peculiar circumstance. (Instead,…
The state has closed a loophole that allowed landlords to enact huge rent hikes upon exiting the Mitchell-Lama program. Under the loophole, owners of Mitchell-Lama rental buildings constructed before 1974 will no longer be able to raise rents to market rate by claiming that leaving the program amounts to a unique and peculiar circumstance. (Instead, the units will become rent-stabilized.) The new regulation comes as government programs like Mitchell-Lama subsidize fewer and fewer units in the city: Between 1990 and 2006, the city lost 27 percent, or 32,422, of its apartments in subsidy programs, according to data from the Community Service Society. Although the regulation may have an impact on many of Brooklyn’s Mitchell-Lama buildings, it won’t matter at its largest one. The present or future owners of Starrett City could bring rents at the 5,800-unit complex to market rate if they left Mitchell-Lama, since the development was completed in 1974.
Albany Bars Rent Rise for Thousands [NY Times]
Starrett City’s Owners Look to Leave Mitchell-Lama [Brownstoner]
Photo by West Side Neighborhood Alliance.
Welcome to New York anon 9:47.
i think that you guys are being too hard on this poor guy. artists add a lot to nyc. for example, an artist on my block painted the sidewalk purple and then drew a smiley face on top of it. he said that it symbolized our racist, sexist, ageistic, speceistic, homophobic, society. he also pointed out that most sewing scissors are designed for right-handed people and that this discriminated against artists, many of whom are left-handed. i was moved to tears. i told him he was a genius and should be moved into a palace so that he could create more works of beauty. so lay off, you mean people. artists rule!
subsidizing only a few is bad policy
leads to higher market rates for the rest
its unfair and unethical and easily corrupted
Why all the hate? Ok, maybe he is an unemployed artists – and if he isn’t making any money, then that’s his problem.
But come on, you don’t think $4k a month is a lot of money just to rent a 1 bedroom?
Even if you earn $150,000 a year, that $4k a month in rent is about half your take home pay. And while many here earn that much or more, it is still a relatively high salary. Most people don’t earn that much.
And paying that much in rent only leaves you another $4k a month to live on – gas, electric, phone, food, subway card, entertainment, etc. Sure, you could live nicely on that still, but then you can’t save much each month either to purchase something.
thats a bummer.
i charge my tenants more that 4K for a 1BR
so $4,000 a month for a 1 bed is ok with you guys…
right?
c’mon guys, let’s be fair
art is his passion
bartending pays his bills
he has a right to live in manhattan at below market rates, since he obvioulsy adds so much culture to our fine city, the very culture that makes us want to be here. we should be grateful for commuting an hour, working hard, paying taxes.. so that we can subsidize his very presence.
without him we would be nothing
no, it doesn’t matter that i already have snagged a rent controlled loft for life at $87/month. thats totally irrelevant. we need a strong middle class, such as this guy, myself, etc to keep nyc afloat
and oh yeah if you dont like it go back to ohio or something
if only we can all be as cool as 9:20 (aka a r/s leach)