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.
THis forum has 3 or 4 landlords who restart the same tired old thread that basically says WE WANT MORE MONEY.
When the thread goes to a dozen pages they start a new one.
Tedious beyond belief.
Has there ever been a group of people with such a strong single motivation in life: GREED?
Well ... three or four astonishingly inarticulate people who CLAIM to be landlords. The weakness of their actual arguments demands that they resort to name calling, hyperbole that is not even smart, and similar. This usually makes a poor impression on intelligent people so it will take care of itself.
The bottom line is this: LLs got tax breaks for making a certain portion of their apartments rent stabilized/controlled. They still get breaks for renting to senior citizens/disabled people. That's the deal the LLs made ---- whether you bought the building yourself or inherited it, it was a deal made. No one was forced.
If you can't handle being a LL, sell your building. Stop the "I'm LOSING money every month" war cry. It's old and tired.
No, the bottomline is that you were WRONG. You thought you had a strong case on Landlords receiving "tax breaks" until I broke it down to you and EDUCATED you how this so called "tax break" is really not. You really thought you had an angle on Landlords over tax breaks but you failed you fool.
Now you try to direct attention elsewhere since your whole tax break point is moot.
If operating expenses were stabilized like rent are then me and other landlords would not be here complaining. And that's the root of the problem...Landlords receive below market rents under RS but have to pay market rate expenses. Don't you see anything wrong with that? Its fundamentally wrong. You have to be fair and fairness does not exist for Landlords under Rent Stabilization.
Well ... three or four astonishingly inarticulate people who CLAIM to be landlords. The weakness of their actual arguments demands that they resort to name calling, hyperbole that is not even smart, and similar. This usually makes a poor impression on intelligent people so it will take care of itself.
I have observed this elsewhere as well.
Well, well! "three or four inarticulate people"?......"the weakness of their arguments"??? You just stepped into it, pal.
Opposition to rent control among economists spans the political spectrum from Milton Friedman and Walter Block to leftist Nobel Laureates Gunnar Myrdal and Paul Krugman. In fact, it was the socialist Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck who famously said, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing it."
As the liberal economist Paul Krugman said:
"The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. A poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'' Referring to the disastrous rent control system in San Francisco, Krugman says when "an official proposed a study of the city's housing crisis, there was a firestorm of opposition from tenant-advocacy groups. They argued that even to study the situation was a step on the road to ending rent control -- and they may well have been right, because studying the issue might lead to a recognition of the obvious."" Reckonings - A Rent Affair - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com
Well here's just a sample of the IN-DEPTH analyses of (mostly) the NY housing market written over the years by EXPERTS in the field, regarding the destructive effects of government rent control systems on both the quantity and quality of rental stock. And they actually support their case with extensive data. Harlem pal, you won't like it.
Meanwhile you and your ilk can cite the work of no economist - no study, no research - to counter the myriad of housing experts who have demonstrated the destructive effect that rent control law has on the quality and quantity of housing.
three or four landlords with weak arguments???
You and your buddy Kafir have a nasty habit of hitting and running. That is, making baseless statements and then disappearing from the thread when confronted with facts. No name calling here, JUST FACTS.
I am a Landlord (and I hope I am one of the articulate ones). I am not in it for the money as it has been in my family for generations. The fundamental issue I have with rent stabilization, and the laws in general are the restrictions on increases, but having to pay market expenses for oil, gas, electricity, water, sewer, repairs, maintenance, and on and on. None of these are subsidized for Landlords, just the income...don't we see a problem here?
It's kinda like what is happening with salaries....salaries are declining/stagnant in real terms, while expenses like rent, food, gas, etc are rising....now imagine that scenario x10...how long can this occur before the house of cards collapses? And that's the problem I have. I think any reasonable person can understand that.
Secondly, the idea that you have a tenant for life, and their rights in general supercede a LLs in many instances is ridiculous. I paid for the home, it is in my name, but I must keep a tenant forever because they want to stay? Again, a reasonable person should understand this is not reasonable at all.
Secondly, the idea that you have a tenant for life, and their rights in general supercede a LLs in many instances is ridiculous. I paid for the home, it is in my name, but I must keep a tenant forever because they want to stay? Again, a reasonable person should understand this is not reasonable at all.
The common (invisible) enemy is at the luxury market-level, which also involves itself in the so-called "equity portfolios" and similar, all predatory in conception - like the banks. This group makes rent stabilization necessary, and laughs at you when you complain, rightfully, that you have expenses that are not therefore met.
Standing smaller or middle landlords and tenants against each other is just one of those fictions that comes up in the system we have. The working class person blames people on welfare, the middle class person blames them and the working class, etc. Yet, the real problem and "enemy," if you will, is a person with whom few people have contact. And unless you have this contact, you will not realize how truly selfish and anti-social this group is. Nor will you understand just how much money and power they have.
You must admit that most of the market-rate ranters, like most people, are really not smart. So they engage what they think is true, or what is easier.
Reading things here, one would think we were in the 1950s, Cold War context. I thought my students were bad ! I do see the humor but it is also a pathetic testimony to the substandard educational system here. One moron actually used the term "socialist pig." I thought that was funny and shared it with my students because we were reading documents about "red-baiting." They loved it.
I predict that because things have failed, capitalism has absolutely failed, communism has absolutely failed, that the solutions will be a combination of different things. Certainly there have been successes in countries with socialist policies mixed with different things. However. Here, those people who have enjoyed ENORMOUS privilege - and many people do not even understand the extent of that privilege - are now pushing back, hard. Most people don't realize that, either, who is really doing the pushing or what it is about. There are just trickle downs, small people with no idea what is really happening, ranting because they believe the group just below them is to blame. Truly small people, and quite uninteresting to me.
Excuse me but no one "forced" anyone to allow rent stabilization or rent control in their buildings. The LLs were given offers of tax breaks, etc if they had a certain percentage of rent stabilized/controlled tenants. Of course, the LLs wanted the tax breaks but are now crying the blues because people are paying lower-than-market rents. Listen, he inherited a building worth millions of dollars. If he doesn't like the rent stabilization laws that his forebears agreed to, he can sell the building, take the money and leave.
What are you talking about? You are sadly misinformed.
Of course, when someone starts screaming about socialist liberals, it's impossible to take the opinion seriously. But do you truly want to live in a city that's nothing but trust-fund babies, financiers, and far too many people crammed desperately into tiny apartments? Hasn't NYC already been wrecked enough?
That wouldn't happen. It didn't happen before rent stabilization and it wouldn't happened afterwards. There are only but so many people who want to live in Manhattan and can afford the rents. These people will concentrate in desirable areas while the other areas will be left to other classes.
Markets are a great way of sorting things out, social engineering just makes things worse.
I am a Landlord (and I hope I am one of the articulate ones). I am not in it for the money as it has been in my family for generations. The fundamental issue I have with rent stabilization, and the laws in general are the restrictions on increases, but having to pay market expenses for oil, gas, electricity, water, sewer, repairs, maintenance, and on and on. None of these are subsidized for Landlords, just the income...don't we see a problem here?
It's kinda like what is happening with salaries....salaries are declining/stagnant in real terms, while expenses like rent, food, gas, etc are rising....now imagine that scenario x10...how long can this occur before the house of cards collapses? And that's the problem I have. I think any reasonable person can understand that.
Secondly, the idea that you have a tenant for life, and their rights in general supercede a LLs in many instances is ridiculous. I paid for the home, it is in my name, but I must keep a tenant forever because they want to stay? Again, a reasonable person should understand this is not reasonable at all.
I wonder if that is the argument this guy will make it is a pretty compelling one on its face. You are in affect forced to subsidize people with no relief from the government. If the government feels there is a common social good to keep rents low then they need to subsidize expenses as well.
THis forum has 3 or 4 landlords who restart the same tired old thread that basically says WE WANT MORE MONEY.
When the thread goes to a dozen pages they start a new one.
Tedious beyond belief.
Has there ever been a group of people with such a strong single motivation in life: GREED?
I'm not a landlord and rented a rent stabilized unit in NYC for 7 years. I think it should be abolished. I also have a MBA so I understand how economics and markets work. I don't fear them as many liberals do.
This is what happens to buildings when property owners no longer have an incentive to maintain their buildings.
Once one of Latin America’s most developed cities, Caracas now grapples with an acute housing shortage of about 400,000 units, breeding building invasions. In the area around the Tower of David, squatters have occupied 20 other properties, including the Viasa and Radio Continente towers. White elephants occupying the cityscape, like the Sambil shopping mall close to the Tower of David and seized by the government, now house flood victims.
Private construction of housing here has virtually ground to a halt because of fears of government expropriation. The government, hobbled by inefficiency, has built little housing of its own for the poor. The policies toward squatters are also unclear and in flux, effectively allowing many to stay in once empty properties.
On occasion, Mr. Chávez has called for squatters to be dislodged. But in January, he urged the poor to occupy unused land in well-heeled parts of Caracas. Then he qualified these remarks by asking them to have “patience” as officials tried to build low-income housing.
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.
