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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-26-2012, 04:08 AM
 
64,714 posts, read 66,206,532 times
Reputation: 43118

Advertisements

its strictly a political thing you can hang your hat on and win votes.

there is no practicality to it .

 
Old 04-26-2012, 04:55 AM
 
2,503 posts, read 3,522,782 times
Reputation: 1906
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Nice scare tactics, got any data to back up your claims?
Sure I do. I'm going to City Hall today and request they give me the stats on how Rent Stabilization keeps neighborhoods stale and ghetto neighborhoods intacted by offering protection to the undesirables like the ones you see on the video. Sure. I'll get you those stats. It'll be quick so you can hold your breathe until I return.

Last edited by hilltopjay; 04-26-2012 at 06:25 AM..
 
Old 04-26-2012, 06:50 AM
 
8,750 posts, read 15,562,759 times
Reputation: 4168
The may be my biggest issue with RS...the idea that you have to essentially have a tenant for life..or rather that they are legally entitled to the apt for infinity. So the simple question is this: If you know that a tenant you admit into your building you will likely be stuck with for life, do you think you will rent to just about anyone with a pulse, or will you be as strict and careful as possible because you may be stuck with them/their families/friends/habits/behavior for life?

Which is why I would rather leave an apt vacant than compromise on a tenant. Furthermore, when you entitle tenants to the apt essentially for life, what incentive does anyone have to be a good tenant, and hold up their end of the bargain? There is none...because there are really no consequences, so they can do/say/act whatever way they want, and even commit crimes, and still be entitled to the apt. Crazy enough for you?

A reasonable person understand there should be a CAP for tenancy...everyone loves the CAP on rent increases, so why not tenancy????
 
Old 04-26-2012, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
20,159 posts, read 26,453,489 times
Reputation: 9034
Quote:
A reasonable person understand there should be a CAP for tenancy...everyone loves the CAP on rent increases, so why not tenancy????
Putting a CAP on tenency creates extreme hardship for many many people ion times where the vacancy rate is low. New York's vacancy rate is almost always endemically low. These many many people have consistantly voted to maintain some tenant rights subject to regulation.

If there should be a cap on tenancy, then stretch your mind a bit: why not a cap on OWNERSHIP? Did some GOD decree that ownership lasts until the end of time? Or did a consortium of rich owners decide this, dukes and princes perhaps?
 
Old 04-26-2012, 07:24 AM
 
2,503 posts, read 3,522,782 times
Reputation: 1906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post

If there should be a cap on tenancy, then stretch your mind a bit: why not a cap on OWNERSHIP? Did some GOD decree that ownership lasts until the end of time? Or did a consortium of rich owners decide this, dukes and princes perhaps?
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. What does the amount of properties a landlord has have anything to do with price control and keeping the rents affordable? You are just being spiteful because you have no other angle to attack the idea that there should be a cap on RS tenants.
 
Old 04-26-2012, 07:39 AM
 
8,750 posts, read 15,562,759 times
Reputation: 4168
Kefir that doesn't make sense, and you know you are stretching to illogical conclusions. And for the record, there is a cap on ownership.....it's called "If you can't pay your mortgage, taxes, expenses, etc, you lose your home." Even if your home is paid outright, if you can't pay your yearly taxes, the city puts a lien on the property, sells that tax lien in an auction, and the new holders of the lien can foreclose on your property WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE. Presto! The property is theirs and you are homeless. That is not the case for tenants, if they cannot afford the rent, there are a host of programs to pay their rent so they essentially will never leave.

If you want a cap for rents, but no cap on expenses, why not a CAP for tenancy? It can be 5 years, 20 years, whatever, but clearly the idea that you have to keep a tenant for life, regardless of your financial situation or any other factors, is ludicrous and every reasonable person knows this. CAP tenancy so that Landlords have the ability to get rid of bad tenants, which by the way if you are a renter and live in a building with bad tenants, would make your life better, and everyone else's in the building and neighborhood.

A 10 year tenancy to me is reasonable, at which time the Landlord can legally move them out if there is a tenant making life miserable for everyone in the building/neighborhood, or market conditions have changed enough to warrant a new tenant. Of course this is just an option, the Landlord can keep the tenant also, but the Landlord should at least have the opportunity once every 10 years to replace bad tenants. A reasonable person would agree.
 
Old 04-26-2012, 07:40 AM
 
2,503 posts, read 3,522,782 times
Reputation: 1906
I am losing about $6K a month from Rent Stabilized tenants that pay below market rents. I would GLADLY continue to take that loss in exchange for not renewing the leases of my undesirable tenants. As an added bonus, I am willing to offer the NEW tenant that would take the place of the old undesirable tenant the same rent price with NO RENT INCREASE.

The point of this offer is to remove undesirable tenants while maintaining the same rent price to the new tenant. Its a win-win situation. Affordable rents get preserved and the owner is able to remove an undesirable tenant. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
My beef with RS is the simple fact that an undesirable tenant can continue living in your property with no way in removing them! That's the BIG issue I have with Rent Stabilization. That portion, if anything, needs to be reformed.
 
Old 04-26-2012, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,285,210 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilltopjay View Post
I am losing about $6K a month from Rent Stabilized tenants that pay below market rents. I would GLADLY continue to take that loss in exchange for not renewing the leases of my undesirable tenants. As an added bonus, I am willing to offer the NEW tenant that would take the place of the old undesirable tenant the same rent price with NO RENT INCREASE.

The point of this offer is to remove undesirable tenants while maintaining the same rent price to the new tenant. Its a win-win situation. Affordable rents get preserved and the owner is able to remove an undesirable tenant. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
My beef with RS is the simple fact that an undesirable tenant can continue living in your property with no way in removing them! That's the BIG issue I have with Rent Stabilization. That portion, if anything, needs to be reformed.
See, reform that would give a landlord the ability to remove someone from an RS unit, I can agree with that.
 
Old 04-26-2012, 11:43 AM
 
1,431 posts, read 2,099,056 times
Reputation: 1169
RS is a bizarre and inefficient response to New York's housing shortage. I don't understand how any liberal can defend it as an issue of social justice. When I was living in a rent stabilized apartment, my low rent was DIRECTLY CAUSING some immigrant family squeezed into a market rate 1 br apartment in Queens to pay significantly more rent than they would otherwise. How is that fair?

Just getting rid of all rent regulation overnight would be a very bad idea though. We don't want a society where the rich occupy all the most desirable housing and the poor have to commute 4 hours a day to crappy service jobs. A start might be lowering the income cap for luxury decontrol, and taking into account assets instead of just income.
 
Old 04-26-2012, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Manhattan
1,746 posts, read 3,424,427 times
Reputation: 2526
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy View Post
I appreciate that you agree with my first point, as clearly restricting incomes but allowing expenses to go through the roof will inevitably spell disaster. Now how about my second point...you do not agree with a CAP on tenancy? An agreed upon timeframe, whether it is 5 years, 20 years, whatever, in which a landlord can legally not renew a tenant. As it stands now, apts can be occupied for generations...clearly that needs to change. Do you agree a CAP should be set? And maybe it would be reset back to 0 if the building is sold or transferred to a new owner? I think that is fair.

When purchasing a building, the occupancy is no doubt a consideration, but that is irrelevant to whether the rent stabilization law is fair or reasonable. I personally believe everyone in NYC should have a home, a basic right everyone should be afforded including education and healthcare. However, having private landlords incur the expense, problems, and lost profits as a means for the city to achieve this is where I disagree. The city can build housing exclusively to house people, and it has. But creating laws so that the city can guarantee housing by essentially guaranteeing tenants cannot be moved out of privately owned housing, potentially for multiple generations, is wrong.
I'm sorry for the late response. On your second point I think it might work out best if there is indeed a cap. I also think its unfair that a rented apartment can be passed down to children, relatives or friends--that needs to end. Once the original tenant dies or moves the apartment should become unregulated and not passed down like the personal property of the occupant. The reason I think a lifetime cap might work is so that there isn't the instant housing crisis that would occur if all apartments are *suddenly* unregulated. This buys the city time to figure out more viable affordable housing options.

However, those other affordable housing options that I speak of are going to cost money in the form of taxes -- so you'll pay one way or the other. I think the burden is more evenly shared when people are taxed though.

Personally, I think that limited equity co-ops are the way to go. When someone actually owns the unit they live in and can make their own improvements -- then they are less likely to pee in the elevator or vandalize the building.
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.


Closed Thread



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
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