U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-16-2011, 07:11 AM
 
1,434 posts, read 1,116,774 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamontnow View Post
They want to enlarge the umbrella of government control to cover those with incomes of almost a quarter million $$$$$$!!!!:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/ny.../10taxcap.html
"It would raise the thresholds for so-called high-income decontrol to $2,700 in monthly rent and $240,000 in annual income."

Why should our tax dollars be used to pay for the administrative monstrosity called rent stabilization so that our government can force rent subsidies for the rich? Anyone with this income or anyone who can afford a $2700 apartment doesn't need government help. I'm writing my state senator to oppose this craziness.
News flash. People in NYC earning $240,000 aren't "rich". Here we call that "middle class".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-16-2011, 07:15 AM
 
27,290 posts, read 22,750,602 times
Reputation: 14305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
mathjac,

We seem to be on different definitional wavelengths. You are talking about the dearth or absense of "everyday rentals." You seem to differentiate them from "luxury rentals," of which I have seen PLENTY built since 1979.

Perhaps the wrinkle is that there is nothing built today that doesn't DESCRIBE itself as "LUXURY." But that term is illusive because all that seems to be required for luxury is an elevator (hard to avoid in a 40 story building) and a doorman to tend to the needs of 300 cramped apartments made with cheesy drywall and indiviidual HVAC blowers under every window.

So when everything is called LUXURY it is hard to find something called "an everyday rental." The latter term is NOT going to get potential tenants swoopin in.

If you want to see a listing of THOUSANDS of everyday rental apartments in buildings built after 1979 that that have no rent controls just peruse the Sunday Times. The quoted rents might LOOK like they are renting out suites in Versailles but they are very much everyday rentals, apartments that would be scorned almost anywhere else in the country.

exactly my point, only those apartments over the 2000 a month rent stabilization limit were put up. only buildings that were un-stabilized were built and all over 2k a month if the building was a rental.. back in 1979 that 2000 was a "luxury building " today its just a normal building like mine. but the luxury buildings that were put up as time went on didnt just clear the 2,000 buck limit, they went for far more.the buildings put up more recently are thousands a month and still considered luxury .

there were no buildings put up that fell under the stabilized guidelines from 1979 to today that im aware of of.. anyone looking for rents in the under 2,000 dollar catagory which is what still most of the families living in the boroughs want in a stabilized apartment has no choice but to live in an old building.

anything you find today under 2,000 and stabilized is pre 1979. and most rentals put up after wards are still well above that 2,000 buck cutoff.

the newer rentals after 1979 under 2k in buildings are co-ops or condos the owners are renting out but statistically today most are owner occupied so thats not a big option out there.
follow what im saying now?.

Last edited by mathjak107; 07-16-2011 at 07:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2011, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
10,603 posts, read 9,051,483 times
Reputation: 4321
Quote:
exactly my point, only those apartments over the 2000 a month rent stabilization limit were put up.
Are you implying that the $2000+ apartments were put up to avoid rent controls? But there is no need...no new building has rent controls and Battery Park City for example, when built in the '80's had slews of apartments under $2000. It is only now, in the Bush-Obama period of NON-inflation (tongue planted firmly in cheek) that prices have soared to the point where NOTHING costs less than $2000. But this has nothing do with the rent-stabilization $2000 cap. In fact, rental prices in New York have almost nothing to do with rent controls except for the lucky few who have them. It is what the market will bear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2011, 09:13 AM
 
27,290 posts, read 22,750,602 times
Reputation: 14305
yep, no rentals were built after 79 unless luxury which meant over 2,000 back then and today these are mega bucks . only things built other than that were subsidized ,low income or developments that were put up by the city or state with their dough and most of those had low income limitations to get in.. rent stabilization kept landlords and developers out of the rental markets.

by the way battery park was built in the 1980's but was owned and paid for by the state as an experiment .

Battery Park City is owned and managed by the Battery Park City Authority (BPCA), a public-benefit corporation created by New York State under the authority of the Urban Development Corporation.[2] Excess revenue from the area was to be contributed to other housing efforts, typically low-income projects in the Bronx and Harlem.

Under the 1989 agreement between the BPCA and the City of New York, $600 million was transferred by the BPCA to the city. Charles J. Urstadt, the first Chairman and CEO of the BPCA, noted in an August 19, 2007 op-ed piece in the New York Post that the aggregate figure of funds transferred to the City of New York is above $1.4 billion with the BPCA continuing to contribute $200 million a year

after 1979 the co-op craze took hold. it was a landlords way of getting a light at the end of the tunnel. once the origonal tenant was out regulation was dead on that apartment. no landlord in his right mind would put up a rental building .


even though you were not required to be rent stabilized if you built a rental after 1979 you really had to agree to it or your tax structure was horrific as a penalty for not joining. it just wasnt an option ,so only co-ops and condos were put up.


buildings like the one we live in are a thing of the past and its a shame. we have a beautiful 300 family rental building in bay terrace queens. we have a pool , guard house,tennis courts etc and all for under 2k a month. most of the building is still old time tenants like ourselves . in all of bay terrace we have 2 rental buildings in total. every other structure is co-op or condo.

decent rentals are few and far between as most of the co-ops and condos are owner occupied. most folks are left to rent a floor or basement in a 2 family house or they have to spend 2500-3500 a month to rent one of these condos from an owner.

had there not been rent stabilization i believe we would have had many many more rental buildings like ours. .

im not saying rents would be more or less if it wasnt for stabilization as we just dont know but we would have much more supply of new buildings to choose from like our own.

the problem with ending rent stabilization is like boston saw. landlords finally took these old outdated structures that were rent stabilized and gutted them out and made them like new again.

work permits and building permits soared in boston with the end of stabilization.

rents didnt come down but went up slightly as new cost money .

Last edited by mathjak107; 07-16-2011 at 10:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 04:14 PM
 
27,290 posts, read 22,750,602 times
Reputation: 14305
we renewed one of the leases on the 2 remaining apartments today.

the new rent is 1850.00 a month. this is in a prestigous building on central park south facing central park . its a one bedroom and we have a little over 1 million bucks tied up in that apartment. the maintaince is 1250.00 a month.....

basically there is no return on our million bucks. we only hope at some point they take our lease buyout offer. our tenant owns a business and is very wealth... but income isnt a factor
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 04:20 PM
 
12 posts, read 4,756 times
Reputation: 14
Default Why?

Being so real estate savvy, I'm just curious why you chose to tie up a million bucks in this investment that apparently leaves you at the mercy of stabilized renters...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 04:44 PM
 
27,290 posts, read 22,750,602 times
Reputation: 14305
i told this story many times here .

our family were builders back in the 60's and 70's. they would give the investors in the project a big discount in the cost of construction for a stake in the building..

elliot spitzers dad bernie was the financier in this project and the building was put up and we had a stake in the building of a certain amount of apartments.

the building was rental back then but once landlords got a good look at how going with rent stabilization was cheating them in exchange for votes the buildings all turned to co-op conversions for a light at the end of the tunnel.

we owned these apartments for decades and as the tenants got older and older we offered them money to leave. thru the decades many did and we sold the apartments for alot of money. who knew one day these apartments would be worth millions. but we have two tenants left who arent going anywhere nor accepting buyouts so far.

at this point its a waiting game. once they free up the apartment we can sell it but until then we are basically treading water with 1 millon bucks tied up in just 1 of them. ..

Last edited by mathjak107; 07-19-2011 at 05:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 06:02 PM
 
224 posts, read 571,560 times
Reputation: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamontnow View Post
They want to enlarge the umbrella of government control to cover those with incomes of almost a quarter million $$$$$$!!!!:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/ny.../10taxcap.html
"It would raise the thresholds for so-called high-income decontrol to $2,700 in monthly rent and $240,000 in annual income."

Why should our tax dollars be used to pay for the administrative monstrosity called rent stabilization so that our government can force rent subsidies for the rich? Anyone with this income or anyone who can afford a $2700 apartment doesn't need government help. I'm writing my state senator to oppose this craziness.
The entire city is controlled by Liberals, why do you think everything is so expensive? You really thought Bloomberg was a Republican, ha!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 11:40 PM
 
12 posts, read 4,756 times
Reputation: 14
An odd story to say the least. Only residential buildings whose units were already on the market in 1948 were subject to rent control, and later, rent stabilization. This was written into the original rent control laws precisely so that builders would not be deterred from buiding new residential buildings. If your family constructed buildings in the 1960s and 1970s, they are not, nor have they ever been, rent controlled or stabilized. These are just the basic facts of rent control and stabilization as enforced by the New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2011, 01:42 AM
 
27,290 posts, read 22,750,602 times
Reputation: 14305
"quote by mikeinnyc

An odd story to say the least. Only residential buildings whose units were already on the market in 1948 were subject to rent control, and later, rent stabilization. This was written into the original rent control laws precisely so that builders would not be deterred from buiding new residential buildings. If your family constructed buildings in the 1960s and 1970s, they are not, nor have they ever been, rent controlled or stabilized. These are just the basic facts of rent control and stabilization as enforced by the New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal.
""""""""""""""""'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''


really?????? boy do you have that wrong...... heres a perfect example of its not so much what we dont know that makes us beleve wrong facts as much as it is what we know that aint so.

if i didnt know you were wrong i would actually belive you ,you said it so convincingly

i hate to break the news to you but whatever you think you know aint so,better read it again, your not reading it correctly or something. ... ha ha ha

let me sort it out for you so you will be knowledgeable in it since i see you have an interest in it.

okay let me collect my thoughts here:

there are 3 time frames involved to being considered a rent stabilized building. buildings prior to 1947, buildings from 1947 to 1974 and buildings from 1974 to present.

Rent-stabilized apartments are apartments in buildings of six or more units built between Feb. 1, 1947, and Jan. 1, 1974. thats aspect 1 . thats where i fall in.

aspect 2 is Tenants in buildings of six or more units built before Feb. 1, 1947, who moved in after June 30, 1971, are also covered by rent stabilization. dont forget those buildings put up before 1947 dont fall under aspect 1 above so those tenants were grandfathered in,
thats the part you singled out and were trying to use above for your entire determination of rent stabilized or not but you had that part mixed up and thought rent stabilization ended in 1948.


Aspect 3 involves buildings with three or more apartments built or extensively renovated since 1974 with special tax benefits. Generally, these buildings are stabilized only while the tax benefits continue.


why do you think nyc saw the co-op craze in the 1980's?

in case you dont belive me this is right from the nyc guideline site


How to tell if a building is rent stabilized:

In general, stabilized buildings:

Contain 6 or more units;
Were built before 1974;
Are not co-ops or condos;

LET ME GOOGLE THAT FOR YOU... http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/zip.html


the reality is aven though after 1974 you could build a rental building without being stabilized you really had to be. if you didnt the tax structure for valuating your building was a joke and very very high.
sooooo none were built. why bother when you can put up co-ops and condos and be totally free from it along with a gentle tax structure.

Last edited by mathjak107; 07-20-2011 at 03:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top