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.
Hey now, that rent stabilization is why I am living in my grandma's old apartment that she held on to for basically $300 a month And you can be damn sure I don't want that going anywhere.
I have never lived in any NYC apartment, let alone one that is rent stabilized, but I think that you have a very poor attitude. I think the opposite of your way of thinking: I think it is great that someone can plan a life for many years down the road, make a life, become a permanent fixture in a neighborhood and the City all because s/he is living for a long enough time that the apartment is very affordable. I have met a number of people who live in rent stabilized apartments and they are often barely middle class, or have had careers that did not bring in a large income and I say, bless them because they can STAY where they are and live out their lives in that apartment. I love stability and think that there are many benefits from stability. I have zero ax to grind as I have no gain from saying what I am saying and in fact I pay taxes on our income and house and don't mind it if others pay less property tax than we do if they are fortunate enough to live in a rent stabilized place.
we own it a long time... sure it was disclosed. the city said to us if you agree to be stabilized you get a 10 year tax abatement back in the early years(1970's) . in exchange rents will always be fair market and its only to prevent gouging
ha ha ha ha ha ...was that a lie... the rents became a political pawn for decades as politicians held them artficially low to get votes.
Well, then, why don't you just sell the building if you get no profit? I'd like to hear your answer to that one.
And I have never lived in a NYC apartment in my life and own a single family house in Queens. I just think it is good that people can afford to stay in an apartment for decades, as MOST do not have a high income. None that I have met do!
The RSL also established the Rent
Guidelines Board (RGB) -- a nine-member body comprised of four
members to represent real estate interests, four members to
represent the public interest, and a neutral chair -- which was
empowered to determine rent increases. An enforcement arm, the
Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB), was established to settle
disputes between tenants and landlords.
I don't get it...on the RGB there are 4 members who represent the landlord's best interests, but you guys keep losing? so the "neutral" chair is not really "neutral" then?
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
I've heard the argument that by deregulating rent controlled and stabilized apts that it would lower the rents in the city. If this were true I'd be all for getting rid of the system, (phasing it out of course as Sobro said). But in the last few years some 300,000 apartments went to market rate, not to mention some of the new development that has taken place, yet the rent continues to rise. Wouldn't the loss of the rent controlled apartments have some kind of impact on the average cost of rent by either lowering or stabilizing the average rent rate? I'm not attacking the premice but just trying to get a better understanding as to why the "supply and demand" scenario isn't showing in this case.
Can someone who is in support of getting rent control please address the above bolded text?
Can someone who is in support of getting rent control please address the above bolded text?
That's true....and its not like there's brand new rent stabilized buildings....most new buildings that are going up are going according to income. so its not like any more are even being added....
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Obviously you can't just say "okay next month your rent doubles!" to a bunch of people and hope it all turns out okay, but my hunch is that 1,000,000 people paying less than market rate rent in privately owned properties isn't doing the rest of the rent paying public any favors. Of course there are also the administrative expenses the tax payers are on the hook for as well.
There are only 2 beneficiaries of control/stabilization, the renter getting a ride on the backs of their fellow citizens, and the POS politician buying the votes of said renter using the money stolen from the rest of society.
This whole scam creates - like the public employee union members - an entitlement attitude / class who then emerges as a political force unto itself, whose role becomes to extort ever-increasing benefits from the rest of society, who suffers because:
1) everyone else has fewer options to choose from because developers won't build housing because it is financially unviable
2) because of #1, and the lower rent payments made, the city actually loses even more money because of the reduced tax rolls caused by lower rents. Higher rents would increase overall taxes paid into the city.
3) current housing stock falls into disrepair, because landlords - who must endure market expense but cannot charge market prices - cannot afford to pay for repairs.
4) makes the city less attractive and less mobile, because those who want to move to NYC don't because of the difficulty in finding affordable housing. There is a shortage of affordable housing in NYC because almost NONE has been built for decades due to the control / stabilization laws.
There are many other reasons, some mentioned in earlier posts, as to why this obscene system of vote-buying for shelly silver (may he burn in hell for what he has done to the city) is such a cancer.
It should be phased out, as it was in other cities, over a 3-4 year period. That would give current renters in controlled /stabilized apartments plenty of time to find suitably affordable housing.
I have never lived in any NYC apartment, let alone one that is rent stabilized, but I think that you have a very poor attitude. I think the opposite of your way of thinking: I think it is great that someone can plan a life for many years down the road, make a life, become a permanent fixture in a neighborhood and the City all because s/he is living for a long enough time that the apartment is very affordable. I have met a number of people who live in rent stabilized apartments and they are often barely middle class, or have had careers that did not bring in a large income and I say, bless them because they can STAY where they are and live out their lives in that apartment. I love stability and think that there are many benefits from stability. I have zero ax to grind as I have no gain from saying what I am saying and in fact I pay taxes on our income and house and don't mind it if others pay less property tax than we do if they are fortunate enough to live in a rent stabilized place.
That's very sweet. But has no bearing on reality.
I missed the part in the State or US constitution where people are entitled to live where they want forever, even if they can't afford it - and get me and others to pay for it.
Perhaps these people would be willing to pay my grocery and utility bills since I am paying for their housing. YOU might be willing to pay higher fees/taxes whatever to subsidize people who are living in places they could not afford if the market was allowed to rule, but I am not.
Or perhaps YOU would like to make my retirement account contributions and my kids' college tuitions.
Enough is enough, the leeching of others in this country has reached End Game...
Because I'm telling you and every other bleeding heart liberal who is more than happy to take MY money (more like steal it) and hand it over to those less willing to work hard / study for long, long hours to earn their salary - if people like me say the system has reached the point of total corruption like Greece, just like Greece - I will stop paying my taxes. And so will millions of other income producers, and guess what will happen to this country then...
Can someone who is in support of getting rent control please address the above bolded text?
Easy, you have a 1% vacancy rate in the city, partially due to the fact that in the last 40 years very little housing stock has been built, you still have far more demand than supply.
Until this grotesque system is eliminated, developers will not finance large-scale development that would be sufficient to start to hold down the market price increases. That will take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more units built.
Mind you, the reason the prices of market rentals are so high is they need to make up for the badly reduced revenue of the controlled / stabilized apartments.
Were those 1 million apartments completely de-controlled / de-stabilized and tossed onto the market, the top prices would come down, and the bottom end would most certainly rise, meeting somewhere in between.
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.
And you can be damn sure I don't want that going anywhere.
