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.
for whatever the reason and I can only speak for our reason of not putting up rentals in nyc there is a lack of nice ,new rentals.
But your reasoning does not hold water.
What does hold water here, Boston and elsewhere is that money is to be made faster and in larger amounts from co-ops and condos for developers. Rent control/stabilization has nothing to do with it.
The removal of rent stabilization in parts of Brooklyn and NYC has cleaned up the area. Big apt complexes that use to have clothes drying hanging out of balconys and drug dealers hanging out in their Lexus SC300/400 are now gone and replaced by newly renovated buildings and the latest eatery shops.
Rent stabilization is also the reason why Chinatown in Manhattan still looks like Chinatown, dirty, messy, and outdated while Chinatown in Flushing looks modern and new towers and stores are actively being developed because there aren't any rent stabilized zones in that area.
The removal of rent stabilization in parts of Brooklyn and NYC has cleaned up the area. Big apt complexes that use to have clothes drying hanging out of balconys and drug dealers hanging out in their Lexus SC300/400 are now gone and replaced by newly renovated buildings and the latest eatery shops.
Rent stabilization is also the reason why Chinatown in Manhattan still looks like Chinatown, dirty, messy, and outdated while Chinatown in Flushing looks modern and new towers and stores are actively being developed because there aren't any rent stabilized zones in that area.
Really ? Did it clean up, say, Mott Street, just below Houston, for example ? Or Prince Street, adjacent ?
Spring Street ?
Because I seem to recall them being, first of all, not in need of cleaning up in my lifetime, and second and most importantly, vastly more interesting when the population was something a bit more than white (with a couple of token hipster black) transplants clutching parental money.
What does hold water here, Boston and elsewhere is that money is to be made faster and in larger amounts from co-ops and condos for developers. Rent control/stabilization has nothing to do with it.
Here it is anything "luxury," whether rentals or co-op/ condo.
It is the only market that exists because only the very very wealthy have anything.
What does hold water here, Boston and elsewhere is that money is to be made faster and in larger amounts from co-ops and condos for developers. Rent control/stabilization has nothing to do with it.
you really have no clue not being in the industry what the real deal is. you are assuming you think you know .
Ending Rent Stabilization in NYC will without a doubt clean up the "hoods" in the 5 boroughs. That in itself in my opinion is enough reason to end Rent Stabilization once and for all so neighborhoods that were formerly "hood" can be transformed into a more family friendly, safe and desirable place to live.
At this point in the game, the only real reason why the "hood" is intacted is because the hood tenants are protected by the Rent Stabilization law which FORCES a landlord to renew the tenant's lease against the landlord's will. As a result, the "hood" tenant sticks around the neighborhood and the ghetto non-sense continues. A never ending cycle.
Even if Rent Stabilization were to continue, I think it should be amended to give the landlord the power to not renew a lease at his discretion just as a free market apartment. Doing so will allow a landlord to remove the bad apple tenants from his building, ultimately impacting the neighborhood in a positive way. The idea is that the landlord has to have some kind of recourse against the tenant if the tenant turns out to be undesirable.
In the current Rent Stabilization climate, landlords who are stuck with undesirable tenants are POWERLESS in removing them. That needs to change.
Ending Rent Stabilization in NYC will without a doubt clean up the "hoods" in the 5 boroughs. That in itself in my opinion is enough reason to end Rent Stabilization once and for all so neighborhoods that were formerly "hood" can be transformed into a more family friendly, safe and desirable place to live.
This is how I know you are not one of the big [problem] landlords. They know this is not the case.
You may know more about the Bronx, specifically, and ghetto populations -admittedly, I do not. But here, those people will not be removed by ending rent regulation. The working poor and lower middle class will, and many middle-class tenants as well. The welfare folk are in "programs," "social service housing," and they are not going anywhere, at least right now. Their apartments are technically stabilized, or were before they were placed in various "programs," but they pay far below any regulated rent. Their "landlords," for want of a better word, are city agencies and/or HPD and ECDO, West Harlem Group Assistance, and similar. I am sure that the Bronx has its own set of "poverty managers." There is a lot of money in that, made by people who live nowhere in the vicinity. Again, eliminating regulation will not touch the people they manage, or should I say, fail to manage in every way.
The enormous number, disproportionate, of "social service" buildings in Harlem, including "very low income" (read: no jobs; not ever), is a fundamental reason that things have not improved as much as they could have. People tend to focus on the projects, but they are a smaller part of the problem. The bigger problem is that building that looks normal but is, in fact, welfare or "transitional" housing. I advise people to research the ownership of buildings before moving to a block for that reason. Do you really want to live with the litter and garbage, screeching and unsupervised children, destructive and violent adolescents ? That's what you get with those buildings, and again, they are not being re-populated or improved given any repeal of rent regulation.
I do not know how this works in the Bronx.
Last edited by Harlem resident; 08-09-2013 at 03:18 PM..
This is how I know you are not one of the big [problem] landlords. They know this is not the case.
You may know more about the Bronx, specifically, and ghetto populations -admittedly, I do not. But here, those people will not be removed by ending rent regulation. The working poor and lower middle class will, and many middle-class tenants as well. The welfare folk are in "programs," "social service housing," and they are not going anywhere, at least right now. Their apartments are technically stabilized, or were before they were placed in various "programs," but they pay far below any regulated rent. Their "landlords," for want of a better word, are city agencies and/or HPD and ECDO, West Harlem Group Assistance, and similar. I am sure that the Bronx has its own set of "poverty managers." There is a lot of money in that, made by people who live nowhere in the vicinity. Again, eliminating regulation will not touch the people they manage, or should I say, fail to manage in every way.
The enormous number, disproportionate, of "social service" buildings in Harlem, including "very low income" (read: no jobs; not ever), is a fundamental reason that things have not improved as much as they could have. People tend to focus on the projects, but they are a smaller part of the problem. The bigger problem is that building that looks normal but is, in fact, welfare or "transitional" housing. I advise people to research the ownership of buildings before moving to a block for that reason. Do you really want to live with the litter and garbage, screeching and unsupervised children, destructive and violent adolescents ? That's what you get with those buildings, and again, they are not being re-populated or improved given any repeal of rent regulation.
I do not know how this works in the Bronx.
If the landlord for a "hood" person is the City, then I agree, rent stabilization or not, that "hood" tenant isn't going anywhere.
However, if a private landlord such as myself were ever lucky enough to at least see the mandatory lease renewal clause in RS end, I as well as my other private landlord friends, would in a heartbeat clean up our buildings by opting not to renew the leases of such undesirable hood people. Program tenant or not, having the ability and power to choose not to renew the tenant's lease is crucial to cleaning up a "hood" infested neighborhood.
We would then replace those hood tenants with a better quality of tenants that do not subscribe to that "hood" culture. And I would happily charge them the same rent as the previous tenant. The idea is to improve the neighborhood by identifying the culprits who make it undesirable and thus removing them by not renewing their lease.
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.
