U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 12-16-2011, 03:17 PM
 
Location: West Harlem
3,958 posts, read 2,784,759 times
Reputation: 1713

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but View Post
So it's not illegal to own other real estate if it is "vacation" or "investment property?"

When it comes to income, why don't they make income limits on rentals of less than $2K a month and lower the limit to something more reasonable than $200K for two years on the rentals over $2K? Is it a case where they will not change anything just because the laws started that way decades and decades ago? It just doesn't make any sense ... if people are going to be subsidized, then they should at least need it.
Of course it does not make sense. Once again, the wealthiest benefit, because they have the money to bend the rules, hire lawyers, and so on.

The system needs reform, and in particular some sort of ENFORCED needs testing, a system without exploitable loopholes. On the other hand, only a fool would see this as evidence that we need to trust "the invisible hand" of some mythical "free market." Neither exists. The market is played and manipulated every day.

The needs testing does exist for most of the so-called mixed income buildings. The problem there: Middle-class professionals are at risk of living next door to those very low-income people who are also undesirables.
I have heard stories.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2011, 03:29 PM
Status: "I LOOOVE COLORS" (set 6 days ago)
 
30,135 posts, read 27,219,387 times
Reputation: 17564
FOR WHAT CONSTITUES A PRIMARY UNDER RENT STABILIZATION YOU CAN READ IT HERE

NYC Rent Guidelines Board
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2011, 04:07 PM
 
10 posts, read 10,414 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
I think liberals in this context means those who favor economic policies that most would deem socialist.
I understand that, but there are plenty of business people who have liberal economic views. Not to mention every airplane executive who takes a subsidy, all farmers, and every hospital that takes Medicaid, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
Ah now you have inadvertedly touched on why some of us are opposed to rent stabilization. Just putting aside the fact that the rents for an affordable building would not cover the expense of constructing and operating the building.
It wasn't inadvertent, I was responding to this point exactly. Why are we "putting aside" the fact that the rents wouldn't make an affordable building profitable? That's my whole point, forget not wanting to cede control to the government, why would they build affordable if they won't make as much money, and the market can clearly support more luxury buildings?

Quote:
You are part of the problem IMHO. In normal cities you would have already left this apartment years ago due to the normal cycle of life. The apartment would be added to the supply of available housing which would have satisfied the demand keeping prices stable assuming there are now major imbalances.
I think that the current demand would probably increase if the overall average rent decreased, and it would just be driven right back up. Though in my case I'm in a co-op, so when I leave the apartment will go into the owner-occupied pool, not the rental pool. This is Manhattan, the rents are going to be astronomical. I truly believe if they did go down, it wouldn't be enough to make middle-class families able to afford it.

Quote:
Now since you have a great deal you have effectively kept this apartment off the market, creating a scarcity and driving up the cost for everyone else who wasn't fortunate to get a good deal.
Not everything in life is fair, and I admit if you're comparing my situation to someone else's who would like to move here, I win. But there is other stuff besides how much money you have that gives you a right to things. Like the fact that I was born here, and love this city in a way no outsider ever could. Don't we want some native NYers to actually be able to stay here? Or are we going to become a city of only rich transplants, who come, make their money, and leave to raise a family? Do we want to be a culture without any multi-generational families? With no roots? Manhattan is already an island of materialism and greed and shallow-ness, can't we keep a little bit of soul? I truly love this city, I have roots and history here, I remember things that should be remembered, I'm a great neighbor and one of the actually nice and welcoming people you might pass on the street. I add a lot of value to my community beyond some extra rent. Without the last holdouts like me, Manhattan would be nothing but frat boys and trust fund socialities.

Quote:
I suspect you do not live near the riff-raff at any rate the city was "diverse" before rent control and would be afterwards. The upper middle class will concentrate in areas they like leaving the rest of the city to everyone else.
I consider integration to be an important part of diversity. When the uber-rich completely separate themselves from the realities of the rest of the world, bad things happen.

Quote:
What you have now due to stabilization is that people who have good incomes are priced out of areas they want to live due to people like you.
I have a good income, thank you. So I'm actually the person pricing myself out of the area I want to live in, lol. You're saying, "if you left, you'd be able to afford to live here" - but I can afford to live here as it is! Living in Manhattan I consider myself middle class, but anywhere else I'd be upper-middle, or higher even. And BTW, no-one but the super-rich have been able to afford my neighborhood for decades.

Anyway, as I said in my first post, I'm all for making sure landlords are doing okay, and that we're not shooting ourselves in the foot as far as new construction. I just don't think it has to be an all-or-nothing solution.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2011, 05:44 PM
Status: "I LOOOVE COLORS" (set 6 days ago)
 
30,135 posts, read 27,219,387 times
Reputation: 17564
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but View Post
The beneficiaries of rent control and rent stabilization are sometimes NOT in a "lower than" socioeconomic category. Correct me if I am wrong, but in order for an apartment (and its tenant) to become destabilized doesn't the rent have to go to $2,000 per month AND the tenant's income have to be over $200,000 a year for TWO consecutive years? That's a JOKE. People are even allowed to own other real estate with no restrictions but can still claim the apartment as their "primary residence." That's another joke. What you own should be your primary residence.
now there is a well thought out idea ,what you own should be your primary residence . it could be if fraud wasnt a crime.

working in nyc and having full time residency here and claiming another state as your primary residance because you have property there is fraud.

its insurance fraud lying where your car is primarly kept and driven and its tax fraud lying about where you are located full time. there is a reason the laws work the way they do when it comes to primary residence.

what you choose to spend your money on is no criteria for determining if you should live where you do. some people blow thousands every year on vacations,cars, jewelry or whatever they like. the fact someone spends it on a vacation home is just another choice in life .


if anyone is unhappy how the system works call your political leaders, the gov't created this stupid structure not the people who got caught up living in it.

Last edited by mathjak107; 12-16-2011 at 05:55 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2011, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Nassau, Long Island, NY
15,856 posts, read 17,094,026 times
Reputation: 6522
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
now there is a well thought out idea ,what you own should be your primary residence . it could be if fraud wasnt a crime.

working in nyc and having full time residency here and claiming another state as your primary residance because you have property there is fraud.

its insurance fraud lying where your car is primarly kept and driven and its tax fraud lying about where you are located full time. there is a reason the laws work the way they do when it comes to primary residence.

what you choose to spend your money on is no criteria for determining if you should live where you do. some people blow thousands every year on vacations,cars, jewelry or whatever they like. the fact someone spends it on a vacation home is just another choice in life .


if anyone is unhappy how the system works call your political leaders, the gov't created this stupid structure not the people who got caught up living in it.
I think you misunderstood that sentence.

I do not mean people should be claiming one place is their primary residence when it really isn't in order to cheat on taxes, insurance, etc.

What I meant is that if a person benefitting from rent stabilization/rent control "owns" residential real estate that (under the roof they own) should be where they actually do live (as their primary residence). They should not be allowed to live in a rent stabilized/rent controlled apartment on the landlord's dime. If there is an absolute need for rent control/stabilization, then people who own residential property should not be allowed to take advantage of it.

However, these are just my own musings in an attempt at some common sense. I am aware that the law in effect is quite different, and, as it has been in place for more years than I have been alive, is not likely to change significantly anytime soon!

From the link you posted earlier:

Quote:
You can own property elsewhere as long as you can prove that the apartment is your primary residence.
It is what it is.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2011, 07:05 PM
 
Location: West Harlem
3,958 posts, read 2,784,759 times
Reputation: 1713
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but View Post
I am aware that the law in effect is quite different, and, as it has been in place for more years than I have been alive, is not likely to change significantly anytime soon!

From the link you posted earlier:



It is what it is.
I think they will change. People are aware of the abuses, which directly hurt other people.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2011, 07:26 PM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
3,902 posts, read 2,230,003 times
Reputation: 2912
Has rent control ever been challenged at the level of the Supreme Court in the past?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2011, 07:31 PM
Status: "I LOOOVE COLORS" (set 6 days ago)
 
30,135 posts, read 27,219,387 times
Reputation: 17564
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but View Post
I think you misunderstood that sentence.

I do not mean people should be claiming one place is their primary residence when it really isn't in order to cheat on taxes, insurance, etc.

What I meant is that if a person benefitting from rent stabilization/rent control "owns" residential real estate that (under the roof they own) should be where they actually do live (as their primary residence). They should not be allowed to live in a rent stabilized/rent controlled apartment on the landlord's dime. If there is an absolute need for rent control/stabilization, then people who own residential property should not be allowed to take advantage of it.

However, these are just my own musings in an attempt at some common sense. I am aware that the law in effect is quite different, and, as it has been in place for more years than I have been alive, is not likely to change significantly anytime soon!

From the link you posted earlier:



It is what it is.
benefiting from rent stabilization is a relative term. many rent stabilized apartments that may have been slightly under market suddenly have become over market.

there were rent concessions the last few years,give backs by landlords and no rent increases in unregulated apartments. the whole down turn the last few years stabilized apartments saw increases the entire time. some are now higher than free market.

thats why its a bad system, it has no basis for anything other than just keeping rents for a select few below market and everyone else pays market,even those in stabilized apartments who werent there for that sweet spot decades ago got themselves no bargain going forward..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2011, 04:02 AM
Status: "I LOOOVE COLORS" (set 6 days ago)
 
30,135 posts, read 27,219,387 times
Reputation: 17564
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but View Post
I think you misunderstood that sentence.

I do not mean people should be claiming one place is their primary residence when it really isn't in order to cheat on taxes, insurance, etc.

What I meant is that if a person benefitting from rent stabilization/rent control "owns" residential real estate that (under the roof they own) should be where they actually do live (as their primary residence). They should not be allowed to live in a rent stabilized/rent controlled apartment on the landlord's dime. If there is an absolute need for rent control/stabilization, then people who own residential property should not be allowed to take advantage of it.

However, these are just my own musings in an attempt at some common sense. I am aware that the law in effect is quite different, and, as it has been in place for more years than I have been alive, is not likely to change significantly anytime soon!

From the link you posted earlier:

It is what it is.
so under your thinking those that chose to invest in a 2nd home they may use a few months out of a year rather than the stock markets or their 401k's have to move from a place they have been in 40 years. thats rediculous. what about those that chose to own rental properties rather than stocks ?

what about the person that has 1 million in a retirement plan ,whats different about that ? its just a different asset class.

i got one better , to a retired person 1 million in a retirement plan represents abot 40k in income, thats no different than the guy with a 40k pension and no money in the bank,.

your logic of having to move because you chose to own real estate makes no sense. rent stabilization isnt a system based on need ,its just regulated rent increases ,sometimes high ,sometimes lower than free market sees .its in place and holds for for everyone unless your income is over the limit AND the rent has to be over the amount regulated..


we already have a housing system based on need and thats section 8 or city and state sponsered housing .

im on both sides of the fence ,we live in a stabilized apartment and i own rentals that are stabilized. im not in favor of stabilization and the slight discount in rent we have after 35 years doesnt amount to a hill of beans but then again im not in favor of lots of laws i feel are just wrong but i still have to abide by them.


its always human nature that everyone thinks those that have more than they do can afford to give some up or something up. but those same people would scream bloody murder if something was taken from them because in the eyes of the people below them they have to much and should give up that pay raise or drop their fees for what they do for a living.

Last edited by mathjak107; 12-17-2011 at 05:23 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2011, 07:58 AM
 
Location: West Harlem
3,958 posts, read 2,784,759 times
Reputation: 1713
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post


its always human nature that everyone thinks those that have more than they do can afford to give some up or something up. but those same people would scream bloody murder if something was taken from them because in the eyes of the people below them they have to much and should give up that pay raise or drop their fees for what they do for a living.
It has nothing at all to do with human nature, and everything to do with the system we now have.

Most people lack the critical thinking skills, and/or basic intelligence - neither of which are encouraged in our culture - to see anything else.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top