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: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-31-2012, 03:00 AM
 
29,750 posts, read 26,519,992 times
Reputation: 17384

Advertisements

about 1/2 the remaining rent stabilized apartments are co-ops with stabilized tenants. once the origonal tenants are out or die games over and stabilization ends so your theory about it keeps the neighborhood stable is not true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-31-2012, 07:11 AM
 
2,498 posts, read 1,754,151 times
Reputation: 1714
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Yes cause sterile overpriced rich neighborhoods that no one that makes below six figures can live in is so much better. You do realize there still is this thing called the middle class, we aren't all filthy rich.

And I answered your question because you posted on a forum, it is a discussion board after all, if that question was meant to be directed to one person, you should probably send that person a PM.
See, you must live in Manhattan to complain about rich people and being priced out because in my neck of the woods, the Bronx, there are no rich people or luxury apartments. Gating rid of rent Stabilization or at least phasing it out gradually will not transform the Bronx into what Manhattan is today. In fact it will help the middle class, as currently the predominate demographic of the Bronx are undesirable low income people with issues. These undesirables under RS law are entitled to get their lease renewed by the landlord hence keeping the neighborhood ghetto and stale with very little movement of tenants.

If RS didn't exist, landlords can easily remove these undesirables from their properties by simply not renewing their lease when it expires. The neighborhood is cleansed from its ghetto people and the vacant apartments get rent to middle class people. I'm a landlord and that's exactly what I would do. Rent to middle class folks. I have absolutely not wrong with middle class people but I do have something against low income people who have that ghetto mindset and contribute to the poor quality of life in the city. Let them move to Newark for all I care. As long as they're not menesesing in my backyard then it's all good. Put it this way, rich people are not moving to the Bronx even if RS gets abolished. So then the decision becomes...do you rent to more educated and polite middleclass folks and improve the neighborhood or do you rent to ghetto fabulous low income street people on welfare and section 8 and make the neighborhood worst? I personally would pick the middleclass in a heartbeat. And this is coming from a fellow Bronx landlord.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
33,565 posts, read 9,486,274 times
Reputation: 5462
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilltopjay View Post
See, you must live in Manhattan to complain about rich people and being priced out because in my neck of the woods, the Bronx, there are no rich people or luxury apartments. Gating rid of rent Stabilization or at least phasing it out gradually will not transform the Bronx into what Manhattan is today. In fact it will help the middle class, as currently the predominate demographic of the Bronx are undesirable low income people with issues. These undesirables under RS law are entitled to get their lease renewed by the landlord hence keeping the neighborhood ghetto and stale with very little movement of tenants.

If RS didn't exist, landlords can easily remove these undesirables from their properties by simply not renewing their lease when it expires. The neighborhood is cleansed from its ghetto people and the vacant apartments get rent to middle class people. I'm a landlord and that's exactly what I would do. Rent to middle class folks. I have absolutely not wrong with middle class people but I do have something against low income people who have that ghetto mindset and contribute to the poor quality of life in the city. Let them move to Newark for all I care. As long as they're not menesesing in my backyard then it's all good. Put it this way, rich people are not moving to the Bronx even if RS gets abolished. So then the decision becomes...do you rent to more educated and polite middleclass folks and improve the neighborhood or do you rent to ghetto fabulous low income street people on welfare and section 8 and make the neighborhood worst? I personally would pick the middleclass in a heartbeat. And this is coming from a fellow Bronx landlord.
Which may be all good and true, and you sound like a decent person for how you would better like to run your property, but at the end of the day I would much rather live in a place that I know that I can't be kicked out of because my rent skyrocketed overnight because it became the new "hip" neighborhood.

I would however go with what you are saying and would say things like Rent Stabilizing and Control should be more of a borough issue rather than an across the board issue, that way someplace like the Bronx which will have a stigma for a really long time could do things on its own to make improvements and could potentially work better without RS, but someplace like Brooklyn where rents could easily fluctuate more based on which neighborhood is becoming "cool" could better regulate its rent to not throw people out of their places overnight.

In the end, we are talking about a massive city here, where blanket things like this might not work for everywhere, but does work for some areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 01:36 PM
 
2,498 posts, read 1,754,151 times
Reputation: 1714
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Which may be all good and true, and you sound like a decent person for how you would better like to run your property, but at the end of the day I would much rather live in a place that I know that I can't be kicked out of because my rent skyrocketed overnight because it became the new "hip" neighborhood.

I would however go with what you are saying and would say things like Rent Stabilizing and Control should be more of a borough issue rather than an across the board issue, that way someplace like the Bronx which will have a stigma for a really long time could do things on its own to make improvements and could potentially work better without RS, but someplace like Brooklyn where rents could easily fluctuate more based on which neighborhood is becoming "cool" could better regulate its rent to not throw people out of their places overnight.

In the end, we are talking about a massive city here, where blanket things like this might not work for everywhere, but does work for some areas.
I understand where you are coming from but then the whole ENTITLEMENT part of what you propose becomes an issue. Why should you or anyone else be "entitled" to live in NYC? Why not move to Brooklyn or the Bronx? Rent is cheaper there than Manhattan. Why must you or anyone else insist on living in Manhattan? Just because you like NYC doesn't mean you are "entitled" to live there forever at the landlord's expense. Manhattan will forever be an expensive city no matter what. It's expensive with Rent Stabilization, and it'll be expensive without Rent Stabilization.

I would love to own a house in the Hamptons but I can't because I can't afford it. I live within my MEANS. I don't tell the home owner to lower the asking price of the house 50% so I can afford it. I look elsewhere and so should you if rent gets to high. Nothing is forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 01:57 PM
 
8,752 posts, read 9,491,260 times
Reputation: 4168
I generally agree with that statement. You should live somewhere you can afford. If my car insurance goes up more than I can afford...I must pay the increase, shop for a cheaper rate, or get rid of my car....the answer is not to insist tax payers pay the difference. If rent goes up to a rate I cannot afford, I negotiate with the landlord to see if we can compromises, if not, I move, not insist that tax payers pay the difference. See how that works?

The flip side is, we also need affordable housing in NYC to maintain the working/middle class who provide vital services. So while I agree rent goes up and you should move, I also agree with Bloomberg's affordable housing initiative which secures good, affordable housing in the 5 boroughs to those who earn it. And by that I mean who work and fall into the income brackets, have good credit, employment history, etc...but just find it hard to get good housing. We want to keep those people, like teachers, police officers, middle managers, civil servants, etc who provide vital services to keep the city going.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
33,565 posts, read 9,486,274 times
Reputation: 5462
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilltopjay View Post
I understand where you are coming from but then the whole ENTITLEMENT part of what you propose becomes an issue. Why should you or anyone else be "entitled" to live in NYC? Why not move to Brooklyn or the Bronx? Rent is cheaper there than Manhattan. Why must you or anyone else insist on living in Manhattan? Just because you like NYC doesn't mean you are "entitled" to live there forever at the landlord's expense. Manhattan will forever be an expensive city no matter what. It's expensive with Rent Stabilization, and it'll be expensive without Rent Stabilization.

I would love to own a house in the Hamptons but I can't because I can't afford it. I live within my MEANS. I don't tell the home owner to lower the asking price of the house 50% so I can afford it. I look elsewhere and so should you if rent gets to high. Nothing is forever.
What you see as "entitlement" is see providing affordable housing for those that actually run NYC. There are plenty of people that make NYC run that could never afford to live in Manhattan without help, do people abuse this? Sure, but you can't tell me you would rather have a city where the people who work and run the city...the people at the bottom of the pay scale should be commuting several hours because they can't afford to live in the city they work in? Now if you are talking about raising the pay to the point that the lowest paid person could afford to live where they work, then we have something better where the private industry takes care of the problem, but this will probably never be the case.

Besides, if NYC is expensive with or without Rent Stabilization, then what's the point about arguing if the city needs it or not because it clearly has no major effect on a city of that size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 03:24 PM
 
2,498 posts, read 1,754,151 times
Reputation: 1714
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Besides, if NYC is expensive with or without Rent Stabilization, then what's the point about arguing if the city needs it or not because it clearly has no major effect on a city of that size.
Exactly. What IS the point of having Rent Stabilization if either way its expensive? Thats the million dollar question yet RS is still in the books. And landlords like myself have to subsidize the lucky few tenants that pay below market rents and I get nothing in return. These tenants don't live in Manhattan but in the Bronx. Market rents in the Bronx for a huge renovated 3 bedroom apartment is about $1,650-$1,700. Nowhere as high as Manhattan rent prices yet the RS laws that exist are really there to protect wealthy Manhattan renters and polictians like Chritine Quinn. And people in the outer boroughs where market rents are significally lower, ride the coat tails of policitcally active wealthy manhattan renters with clout.

RS has existed in NYC for about 80 years I believe. Has it been mission accomplished for the RS laws to make the city inexpensive? Nope! And never will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
33,565 posts, read 9,486,274 times
Reputation: 5462
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilltopjay View Post
Exactly. What IS the point of having Rent Stabilization if either way its expensive? Thats the million dollar question yet RS is still in the books. And landlords like myself have to subsidize the lucky few tenants that pay below market rents and I get nothing in return. These tenants don't live in Manhattan but in the Bronx. Market rents in the Bronx for a huge renovated 3 bedroom apartment is about $1,650-$1,700. Nowhere as high as Manhattan rent prices yet the RS laws that exist are really there to protect wealthy Manhattan renters and polictians like Chritine Quinn. And people in the outer boroughs where market rents are significally lower, ride the coat tails of policitcally active wealthy manhattan renters with clout.

RS has existed in NYC for about 80 years I believe. Has it been mission accomplished for the RS laws to make the city inexpensive? Nope! And never will.
So what you are saying is that because NYC is expensive anyway, then you should be allowed to charge whatever you want for rent? Which if that is the case, I am guessing you would want to raise your rents to make them more affordable to the "middle class" or to get the most profit you can out of them like every other building owner? Though if your argument is to say that you would offer units for much lower rate, then I agree with you that having a blanket system for RC/RS is a bad idea and should be more regulated on the burrough and even neighborhood level instead.

Also, I am guessing that not every building in NYC has rent control or rent stabilized units in them, which the details of how buildings get them is outside of my knowledge because I haven't fully read up on the history to them. I know in Vancouver, BC it has to do with the credits and tax breaks the developer gets that helps offset the cost as well as gives the developer other added perks for their market rate units. So I am not sure how NYC's system fully works in that regard.

I am curious how your building came to have RC and/or RS units in them?

As for not making NYC any less expensive, I would bet it has for those living in those units, especially if they had to spend twice that amount on rent rather than other necessities.

I am also curious what the number of RC and RS units there are in each burrough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 07:15 PM
 
29,750 posts, read 26,519,992 times
Reputation: 17384
my dream as a landlord would be to charge whatever i liked , just like your dream is to write your own pay checks. if only we had that power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
33,565 posts, read 9,486,274 times
Reputation: 5462
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
my dream as a landlord would be to charge whatever i liked , just like your dream is to write your own pay checks. if only we had that power.
actually it is more like, if only I could afford the lobbyist to make that happen.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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