Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Kefir...you are being completely unreasonable and silly. A rational and reasonable person would understand that lifetime renewals is ridiculous, and the fact that you cannot admit that demonstrates you are just a talking head for renters.
I can acknowledge it can be profitable, but I also understand it can be made fairer for everyone. Why would someone be against providing LLs with the reasonable option not to renew tenants after a set period? 5 years? 10 years? Is that whining? Is that unreasonable?
Life time renewal at below market rates is wrong. How about you have a life time job at below market wages and once you took that job you were locked in.
Kefir your argument is just as stupid. When you took that job the pay was fine, you had nice perks and benefits. It was down the road the boss screwed with your pay and it fell behind.
Now you can't leave.
No different for us being forced to keep a tenant for life regardless where our income falls to.
The paper work for hardship increases is near impossible to produce if you are a co-op conversion.
It is as stupid a system as trying to claim old bank accounts.
We found an old bank account for my dad held by the state.
We can't claim it without paper work linking my dad to the address on the account 60 years ago. No such paper work existed and it is impossible to come up with anything.
Even the best paying jobs when you start can turn into the worst paying jobs a decade later. To limit someones ability to change jobs or tenants is absurd and always was.
Especially because the origonal idea of stabilization was to have apartments at a fair market value and just to prevent gouging.
Landlords trying to earn a living were flat out lied to , thats what happened .
If you saw the handwritting on the wall you did a co-op conversion which can make things profitable for your investment but that was just a bandaid on a bad idea. No one should have to wait 20 or 30 years for their pay check when a tenant gives up the lease.
usually only enough insiders buy when a building first goes co-op to make the plan happen . The sponser is still stuck with the majority of the apartments as stabilized rentals for decades or sometimes for their lifetime.
Going co-op was no short term key to riches thats for sure. Our two apartments are stll unsold apartments since the early 1980's.
I will bet our partner bernie spitzer who held the majority of the apartments still has a huge amount of still unsold apartments due to origonal tenants still being in them.
Real estate is just another way folks earn a living and one of the worst ways at that. Between dealing with tenants,laws,courts and politicians more and more the small landlord abandons the idea and forgets about doing it.
Only the largest developers put up big buildings today . It is no longer anything small investors like myself want to have any part of.
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-17-2013 at 04:40 AM..
Sobroguy, Mathjak and Hilltop are LANDLORDS who want more money than the City allows and use specious arguments to hide their GREED.
I on the other hand am neither a landlord nor a tenant and have no axe to grind in the Rent Stabilization issue...it affects me not one iota. So no, we are not at opposite poles. I am on the side of the law...they are not.
If people HATE the laws of New York there are several bridges, tunnels and highways that connect to 48 other states so it is easy to "get the f*** out." The fact that so many of you are still here whining is because you KNOW you are making good money for little work but your greed knows no bounds. Enough is NEVER enough.
The state has in force a law to guarantee a good return to landlords. Tenants have argued that in order to get more money, all landlords have to do was open their books. Landlords DON'T. They'd rather whine about how unfair the law is for them in spite of getting luxury decontrol, vacancy decontrol, capital improvements, vacancy allowances, a GUARANTEED return, and a DHCR that colludes in their right to criminal behavior by making tenant compensation or redress all but impossible.
If I had $1,000 for every landlord's criminal violation of the Rent Stabilization law, I would have a Fifth Avenue Penthouse today and a Bentley in the garage.
Heres a secreat , i only do this for the money just like anyone who works for a living or owns a business.
I want to maximize my gains as far as markets will allow. Just like all of you,if you can do better than market wages, even better.
I didn't put 500k that i borrowed at risk so i can make an amount i can get sitting in a mutual fund with less headaches and far less at stake.
Taking risks while leveraged magnifys the losses too and they can be more than i even put in.
I expect to be compensated for that risk level.
I bought into a business and as such my goal is to maximize every dollar i can.
Last time i looked profit is not a dirty word. In fact without that word none of you have jobs.
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-17-2013 at 09:04 AM..
I bought into a business and as such my goal is to maximize every dollar i
can.
Fine, maximize. But don't demand that state law be changed to increase your wealth. Don't WHINE about your plight. Don't denigrate those making 1/10 of what you do trying to keep a roof over their heads LEGALLY.
It's unseemly.
Landlords are beating tenants with every change in the Stabilization law...must tenants be crucified?
(I am using you in the plural, nothing personal.)
Last edited by Kefir King; 08-17-2013 at 09:57 AM..
I am not demanding anything . Like everything else in this world we all have our opinions about things.
Well my opinion is it has veered so far off course from what it was supposed to be that the lie should be abolshed for doing more harm then good to the overall housing market.
No one was supposed to benefit from below market rents under stabilization.
But you have a small group who does and everyone else is stuck with market rents with tight supply .
The state has in force a law to guarantee a good return to landlords. Tenants have argued that in order to get more money, all landlords have to do was open their books. Landlords DON'T. They'd rather whine about how unfair the law is for them in spite of getting luxury decontrol, vacancy decontrol, capital improvements, vacancy allowances, a GUARANTEED return, and a DHCR that colludes in their right to criminal behavior by making tenant compensation or redress all but impossible.
If I had $1,000 for every landlord's criminal violation of the Rent Stabilization law, I would have a Fifth Avenue Penthouse today and a Bentley in the garage.
You forgot the tax breaks.
Who else but a new York landlord could own property in New York and pay no property taxes.
Certainly not us. But we are not "in" that and would never have been.
Heres a secreat , i only do this for the money just like anyone who works for a living or owns a business.
I want to maximize my gains as far as markets will allow. Just like all of you,if you can do better than market wages, even better.
I didn't put 500k that i borrowed at risk so i can make an amount i can get sitting in a mutual fund with less headaches and far less at stake.
Taking risks while leveraged magnifys the losses too and they can be more than i even put in.
Here's another secret. Some people with money to invest CHOSE OTHER KINDS OF INVESTMENTS.
That's right, we exist !
So ... it seems to me that there is more at stake than best return on investment.
You forgot the tax breaks.
Who else but a new York landlord could own property in New York and pay no property taxes.
Certainly not us. But we are not "in" that and would never have been.
Churches temples hospitals non profit organizations charities , the list is endless .
Any landlord not paying taxes has to give up an awful lot to be in that position.
There is no such thing under normal situations. Even depreciation gets recaptured.
Not sure where you get this stuff from but the logic makes no sense.
Small investors who have stabilized tenants in co-op apartments get not one penny in anything additional.
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-17-2013 at 11:19 AM..
Kefir...you are being completely unreasonable and silly. A rational and reasonable person would understand that lifetime renewals is ridiculous, and the fact that you cannot admit that demonstrates you are just a talking head for renters.
I can acknowledge it can be profitable, but I also understand it can be made fairer for everyone. Why would someone be against providing LLs with the reasonable option not to renew tenants after a set period? 5 years? 10 years? Is that whining? Is that unreasonable?
SobroGuy ... I agree that lifetime renewal is ridiculous -- that is to say, in areas where there are many undesirable tenants.
Many regulated people I know are elderly, or soon to be, never in trouble, retired working class or city administrative jobs. Or working families, two or three school-age children. No programs at all other than regulated apartments, small savings, etc. The only undesirable thing about them is that they cannot pay the $2,300 or more that is now basically the going rate for a one-bedroom place in Central Harlem - and Convent, especially our area, is even more expensive for decent rentals.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
