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.
They can outright own a portfolio of real estate and still be subsidized by the landlord.
Patently false. Owning other property is the chief factor contributing to a successful holdover proceeding - and a very common as well. People are often not caught, for reasons I cannot fathom, but that is a different story.
hilltopjay, I do understand that not every poor person is a criminal, nothing in what I said could be construed to mean that. Unless you think the word riffraff means criminal, and also took my post EXTREMELY literally. Each person has a different idea of what constitutes "riffraff", and for plenty of people it's based on silly things, like if someone dresses or talks in a low-class manner.
Also, NY isn't the only state with rent control laws, they also exist in NJ and CA, and 40 countries around the world.
If you have a tenant who is dealing drugs or involved in other illegal activity, there's a simple solution - call the cops. If they are a major nuisance, document it, warn them appropriately, and then file a holdover claim. I'm not saying it's easy, but taking away someone's home really shouldn't be easy. If you want to live somewhere that you can evict people at the drop of a hat, go to Atlanta.
NYC is different from smaller cities in that housing is ridiculously expensive, even far from the city center. We also have a lot more rich people than most places. I didn't say poor people couldn't live anywhere without stabilization, it would just be far away and in totally separate neighborhoods than everyone else, and possibly put an unfair travel burden on them to work in the city. I like my city all mixed up, and I think interaction between people of different classes is beneficial for all involved.
I would also like to add that not all landlords are as angry and put-upon as those posting on this board (mine is very nice and accomodating, even though I'm the evil rent-stabilized tenant!). I will repeat my earlier suggestion; perhaps you are in the wrong line of work? Life's too short to be so miserable.
EDIT: BTW, I am aware that it's not only poor people who get stabilization; I am middle class and would be totally priced out of Manhattan without it.
Patently false. Owning other property is the chief factor contributing to a successful holdover proceeding - and a very common as well. People are often not caught, for reasons I cannot fathom, but that is a different story.
I personally know people with homes in other places than NYC ("vacation homes" out on Long Island and in Pennsylvania) who also have rent stabilized apartments. They told me they are allowed to have their primary residence be their rented apartment in NYC because the other houses are "vacation homes."
I personally know people with homes in other places than NYC ("vacation homes" out on Long Island and in Pennsylvania) who also have rent stabilized apartments. They told me they are allowed to have their primary residence be their rented apartment in NYC because the other houses are "vacation homes."
THEY told you. However, if they are caught, and/or once their unit or neighborhood becomes of interest, their landlord will file a holdover and they will lose. I would bet they simply have not been caught.
The sense in housing court is - if you are rich enough to afford a vacation home, you do not need rent stabilization. And I agree.
I personally know people with homes in other places than NYC ("vacation homes" out on Long Island and in Pennsylvania) who also have rent stabilized apartments. They told me they are allowed to have their primary residence be their rented apartment in NYC because the other houses are "vacation homes."
We live in a stabilized apartment and my wife has lived there for 35 years.
we also own a vacation home which gets summer usage. one thing has nothing to do with the other anymore than taking frequent vacations does.. the stabilized apartment must be your primary residence for more than 185 days.
its not a question of "needing rent stabilization" . thank your city because every rental was stabilized at one time unless it was a private house or luxury. . thats how it works here good or bad.
by the same token the tenants in my stabilized apartments i own earn more than we do a year,.
Can't we have a civil conversation without dragging out the old "you liberals hate business and are ruining the world" song and dance? Plenty of successful business people are liberals, for one thing, so obviously being a liberal doesn't preclude an understanding and appreciation for economics.
I think liberals in this context means those who favor economic policies that most would deem socialist. I don't think we are talking about viewpoints on abortion, gay rights etc.
Quote:
As for the topic, if these tenants are so rich, then he should be able to deregulate based on the salary cap. I can't imagine anyone could afford a house in the Hamptons without making over $200k/year. There are also other ways you can legally raise their rent, for example economic hardship. And fuel prices and labor costs are also taken into consideration for rent increases.
In theory they are but increases are based more on politics than anything resembling actual costs. If you think fuel costs are rising just 3.75% a year I have a bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale, interested?
Quote:
I'm also interested in these builders who only build luxury buildings just so they can avoid rent stabilization. Considering the fact that our housing market can support seemingly limitless luxury units, don't you think they'd choose to build the type of housing that will make them more money anyway?
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. Why would an owner willingly exert his own private capital to build a building where he will in affect cede control to the government. No rational person would do that hence one reason affordable buildings do not get built in NYC.
Quote:
Full disclosure: I live in a rent stabilized apartment, and would have to move probably out of the state if it was deregulated, but I do think it's important to make sure landlords aren't carrying an unreasonable burden due to stabilization. I always thought it was subsidized through tax relief, and now that I know it isn't, I think it should be.
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.
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.
Quote:
And to the poster who would like to "clean up" the Bronx by kicking out the "riffraff", that's EXACTLY what rent control laws are there to prevent. Everyone deserves a place to live, including low income people, and it keeps our city diverse. In the end, if you're not making money, or don't like being a landlord, it sounds like you need to find a new business.
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.
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. They then go hunting for the next best thing. They now bid up areas which before were lower income but even here many are stabilized so there are only so many apartments to bid on. The cycle continues on and on.
We live in a stabilized apartment and my wife has lived there for 35 years. we also own a vacation home which gets summer usage. one thing has nothing to do with the other anymore than taking frequent vacations does.. the stabilized apartment must be your primary residence for more than 185 days.
its not a question of "needing rent stabilization" . thank your city because every rental was stabilized at one time unless it was a private house or luxury. . thats how it works here good or bad.
by the same token the tenants in my stabilized apartments i own earn more than we do a year,.
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.
THEY told you. However, if they are caught, and/or once their unit or neighborhood becomes of interest, their landlord will file a holdover and they will lose. I would bet they simply have not been caught.
The sense in housing court is - if you are rich enough to afford a vacation home, you do not need rent stabilization. And I agree.
Mathjak also tells a different story much like my friends:
Quote:
one thing has nothing to do with the other anymore than taking frequent vacations does.. the stabilized apartment must be your primary residence for more than 185 days.
The whole system stinks... First of all anyone who moved in over the last decade is paying market rates anyway or just about it.. there is nothing subsidized .
If you were lucky enough to have moved in many many years ago when the rent increases were held artificially low than you caught a break but it varys from place to place...
We actually pay about 150 a month less than someone moving in today and thats on rent in the 2,000 buck range. . No great shakes considering 35 years in the building. as soon as we leave our apartment will be full market price .
there are no bargains in stabilized apartments anymore for the most part unless you have an old time dea and even then it may not be so great.. the whole system is more trouble than its worth.l.
Mathjak also tells a different story much like my friends:
No, it is potentially the same story. If the landlord notices and feels like it, they will lose in a holdover proceeding. It does seem to be something that happens a bit randomly.
I could definitely talk about several identical scenarios. Most of them know that they are living on borrowed time because if caught and brought to task, they will lose the places in question.
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.
