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.
7th what you are saying is sell it to a LL that can buy it for a loss...because nobody else can buy it and run it profitably. The larger LLs can because in theory they have 10 other buildings making money and for some reason want to buy something and lose money? In 2011? That strategy is purely speculatory in the hopes they can "turn the building around" by evicting current tenants and bringing in higher paying tenants...and in the meantime the LL can absorb substantial losses to buy/maintain/renovate/vacancies/litigation etc. That's not a solution as we know the endgame: abandonment/defaults.
Check it out...this is just 1 example I found....I had an even better one off the top of my head but I can't remember the link:
I am not sure what your example is supposed to be proving. It was bought in late 2007, which in NYC was nearing the peak of such speculative buying. There is no doubt in my mind that these buildings were bought with the goal of short-term losses so that they can "turn them around" (aka get rid of existing tenants). Private Equity Investors and their ilk are not the solution to the lopsided income vs purchase price/expenses problem in NYC...they will buy and take a loss for a few years to "reposition" the building and sell at a profit. And when they can't sell and no longer absorb the losses...
The question now becomes...what has happened to these building since that time.
And of course the landlords are winning the political battle as fewer and fewer rent-controlled and stabilized apartments remain...but that won't stop them from whining enlessly that they aren't making enough profit.
No they won't they'll move to the Bronx and other areas of the region with cheaper housing costs.
I am not sure what your example is supposed to be proving. It was bought in late 2007, which in NYC was nearing the peak of such speculative buying. There is no doubt in my mind that these buildings were bought with the goal of short-term losses so that they can "turn them around" (aka get rid of existing tenants). Private Equity Investors and their ilk are not the solution to the lopsided income vs purchase price/expenses problem in NYC...they will buy and take a loss for a few years to "reposition" the building and sell at a profit. Is that what you want?
The question now becomes...what has happened to these building since that time.
Good question...what I really want to see is an example of a large urban metropolis similar to NYC's population that does not have rent control or rent stabilization so that we can compare and indeed prove that the system does not work. For example, everybody is saying that Boston doesn't have rent stabilization. So can someone show me Boston's vacancy rate and apartment affordability is more admirable than NYCs because they're not stabilized?
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Vanwyck I agree with you, however can you point to a specific article regarding Boston and the effect of removing rent control/stabilization has had on rents?
Seventh,
You are one of the pro-rent control posters I referred to in my post below. You're shooting off from the top of your head. No references. No support from economists. In fact you conveniently ignore the opinions of the professional housing economists regarding the destructive effects of rent control. So I repeat for your enlightenment:
I don't need a reference or support from economists. I want to see a true example (in the form of an American city on the population scale of NYC or almost equivalent) that has abolished rent control/rent stabilization policies so that we can see how positive or negative of an impact it has caused in that city. Don't try to "Harvard" me.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
markets will stabilize where they have to. some may go up, some may go down but like water they will seek there own level.
money loves a vacuum and if a supply shortgage exists than landlords building more rentals may bring rents down. or keep them from going much higher.
if no shortage exists then rents may stay where they are or go lower.
it not only depends on supply but the quality of the supply. here in nyc the choices in nice rentals that are stabilized are pretty poor for the most part unless they thwe building is mostly destabilized apartments at this stage.
I don't need a reference or support from economists. I want to see a true example (in the form of an American city on the population scale of NYC or almost equivalent) that has abolished rent control/rent stabilization policies so that we can see how positive or negative of an impact it has caused in that city. Don't try to "Harvard" me.
You don't want us to believe what an unbias professional economist has to say (rent control is bad) but you want us to believe your uneducated "belief" and "gut feeling" that rent control/stabilization is good for people. Oh please.
You wouldn't know it even if it smacked you in the face. You're the type of person that would defend rent control/stabilization no matter what evidence is presented to you that tells you it's bad. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a member of ACORN or that stupid liberal group WORKING FAMILIES.
It's quite obvious what side of the fence you're on. The pro-entitlement side. Pro-welfare, pro-section 8, pro-food stamps. Anything to help your "people" stay put in NY because apparently.
Leech and leech some more off hard working business owner who took the inititive and GUTS to become successful in life while the lazy folks whine and complain how the "rich" got it good, counting the money in "rich" people's pockets yet leech off their tax dollars.
Professional economist. Is that like jumbo shrimp,pretty ugly and happily married? Lol.......
Couple those with the financial predictors we hear from regularly and you got the gang that couldnt shoot straight.
The truth is nobody can predict in advance the effects of anything. Markets in everything will always disappoint the masses as to the outcomes.
Nobody knows where rents would go if controls were taken off.
Its just an unfair system period for landlords and all of those tenant out there that have to pay market rates while their peers get a huge discount if they lived in a building a long time.
The selecton for all of you out there sucks in most areas because of lack of nice new rentals . .
Other than that i cant comment on where rents will ago.
I also find it very unfair that i have to adopt a tenant for life like they are family as a landlord. .
All of the above gripes i have have have nothing to do with the amount of rent .
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.
