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 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-08-2012, 07:28 AM
 
2,503 posts, read 3,519,513 times
Reputation: 1906

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
Unedited opinion?

They are a LANDLORD organization, representing LANDLORDS in setting maximimum allowable rents.
'Nuff said?
And there's nothing wrong with that. Someone (or organization) must stand up to these bias and unfair rent stabilization laws where you have tenants paying below market rent YET landlords have no choice but to pay MARKET rate expenses.

Beyond the money issue, the unfairness of succession rights for tenants that allows a parent to pass along the apartment to their kids as if they OWNED the property and it was part of their estate. Mind boggling!

Also the whole issue of tenants being entitled to a lease renewal despite them being undesirable or a nuisiance to the building. So in essence, a landlord as well as the neighborhood is STUCK with this undesirable tenant and the landlord is helpless in removing them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2012, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC & New York
10,750 posts, read 25,526,667 times
Reputation: 6676
The other problem is that stabilization is a control on the market that strangles the housing supply and prevents new entrants to the market, because of the capricious manner in which income limits and monthly rents are extended arbitrarily. The market is so controlled and regulated, that there is no incentive to produce a mid-tier, or lower-income level project, without public assistance, though there is clearly a market for new rental properties at all price points throughout the city. People tend to forget that it's not a Manhattan-only proposition, and that lower cost housing could be developed in outer boroughs, where associated fixed costs can be recovered, and a market price that reflects a non-regulated level. The argument is not only to raise rents on units that could sustain it, but to free the market to new development and competition. Increased supply tends to lower price points among competitive properties, to market equilibrium, whereas a regulated market with a fixed supply, and few, if any, entrants, tends to have a higher price threshold. However, it's such a political issue in the city that the economic argument, and acknowledgment of a critical housing shortage is glossed over, as if people making $250k need to worry about rent stabilization.
__________________
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.
~William Shakespeare
(As You Like It Act II, Scene VII)

City-Data Terms of Service
City-Data FAQs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2012, 10:44 AM
bg7
 
7,698 posts, read 7,627,262 times
Reputation: 14991
I do rest easy at night knowing that the limit was increased so those earning $240K, for example, are protected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2012, 11:43 AM
 
8,750 posts, read 15,550,014 times
Reputation: 4168
I still haven't figured out how/why someone making $250K needs protection from anything. Since when are the top 5% of wage earners in NYC the victims of anything besides overpriced coffee?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2012, 12:02 PM
 
136 posts, read 154,196 times
Reputation: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmwguydc View Post
The other problem is that stabilization is a control on the market that strangles the housing supply and prevents new entrants to the market, because of the capricious manner in which income limits and monthly rents are extended arbitrarily. The market is so controlled and regulated, that there is no incentive to produce a mid-tier, or lower-income level project, without public assistance, though there is clearly a market for new rental properties at all price points throughout the city. People tend to forget that it's not a Manhattan-only proposition, and that lower cost housing could be developed in outer boroughs, where associated fixed costs can be recovered, and a market price that reflects a non-regulated level. The argument is not only to raise rents on units that could sustain it, but to free the market to new development and competition. Increased supply tends to lower price points among competitive properties, to market equilibrium, whereas a regulated market with a fixed supply, and few, if any, entrants, tends to have a higher price threshold. However, it's such a political issue in the city that the economic argument, and acknowledgment of a critical housing shortage is glossed over, as if people making $250k need to worry about rent stabilization.

Ironically, rent controls in NYC have been a disater for tenants. It has forced the apartment vacancy rate to remain artificially low, thus keeping market rents artificially high. There are a million apartments in the rent-stabilized system. The low-rent tenants in these apartments sit on them for decades or life. Many or even most of these are occupied by people who are rather well-off financially. We really don't know how many because the rent control lobby has blocked all legislation which would survey the incomes of rent-stabilized tenants. But take note the the lobby pushed long and hard, and successfully, to raise the income limit to $200K (they actually wanted it to be a quarter million). Now why would they want that???

And the system is paid for by the tax payers in two ways: 1) There is a HUMONGOUS government bureaucracy which administers the system and 2) the system lowers the value of rental property thereby reducing the city's main source of revenue - the property tax. That shortfall is made up for in higher income tax, sales tax, etc.

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.

How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing
Civic Report 2 | New York City’s Housing Gap, by Peter D. Salins
Housing Policy In New York: Myth And Reality
Is There a New York Housing Crisis? by Nicole Gelinas, City Journal Summer 2006
Thinking Things Over - WSJ.com
Realty Times - New Study Links Rent Control with Deteriorating Housing Stock

The bottom line is that the reason that rent control has been plaguing NYC for 70 years has nothing to do with the health of housing. Rent control is obviously detrimental to housing. It's ALL politics. No Democrat can utter a word of criticism of the system If he did, the lobby would set upon him like a swarm of bees. He would never survive the next primary.
In answer to the OP, the RSA does the best it can in a very hostile political environment. Remember, the left has had control of Albany, and the advent of Cuomo, a self-professed pro-rent control activist, has made things even more difficult.
Hopefully some day the people of the city will wake up and tip the political scales away from the lobby.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2012, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Manhattan
20,129 posts, read 26,407,309 times
Reputation: 9026
Quote:
Ironically, rent controls in NYC have been a disater for tenants.
Ask 10 tenants in rent regualted apartments if it has been a disaster...and 10 of them will say NO, it has been a godsend.
THAT'S the reality.

Has the system prevented the construction of new apartment towers? Anyone saying YES needs a better seeing-eye dog.

"Politicians cannot utter a word against rent controls."
Why? becasue the voting population will CRUCCIFY him. Why? Becasue the bulk of the population WANTS rent control.

In this town there are more renters than homeowners and landlords. And the renters know how to VOTE.

People don't keep rent control in NYC becasue they don't understand how bad it is but rather becasue they know how beneficial it is. (And yes, the landlords stay. They WHINE, but the stay...and increase their holdings.)

It really is simple: landlords want more money...tenants don't want to give it to them. And they BOTH vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2012, 05:03 PM
 
4,383 posts, read 8,676,849 times
Reputation: 2331
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmwguydc View Post
The other problem is that stabilization is a control on the market that strangles the housing supply and prevents new entrants to the market, because of the capricious manner in which income limits and monthly rents are extended arbitrarily.
Rent stabilization only applies to pre-war constructed buildings. Since you seem knowledgeable enough to know this before you wrote it, it's easy to see you have an agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2012, 08:25 PM
 
2,503 posts, read 3,519,513 times
Reputation: 1906
No matter how many facts about how rent control is bad, is thrown in the face of pro-rent control people, they refuse to believe it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2012, 11:04 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC & New York
10,750 posts, read 25,526,667 times
Reputation: 6676
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdm2008 View Post
Rent stabilization only applies to pre-war constructed buildings. Since you seem knowledgeable enough to know this before you wrote it, it's easy to see you have an agenda.
Actually, that's rent control. Rent stabilization applies to many types of buildings, not just the buildings upon which controls were enacted in the WWII era. Both types of regulation are controls on the market that prevent movement toward an equilibrium price, and provide barriers to new entrants into the market at all but the luxury level, where the regulated rents are less likely to apply. Where rent control had a fixed price, and is in the process of being phased out (except for the inheritance provision), rent stabilization has a price that can be adjusted by the RGB, and is not fixed at any one level.
__________________
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.
~William Shakespeare
(As You Like It Act II, Scene VII)

City-Data Terms of Service
City-Data FAQs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2012, 02:38 AM
 
64,532 posts, read 66,100,109 times
Reputation: 42983
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdm2008 View Post
Rent stabilization only applies to pre-war constructed buildings. Since you seem knowledgeable enough to know this before you wrote it, it's easy to see you have an agenda.
sorry ,very very wrong. thats rent control.. better brush up on things before chiming in.
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 $104,000 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
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top