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.
Finally, for anyone out there that really thinks that deregulation is the key to lowering rents city wide, look at Nassau County. There is rent stabilization in some Villages and no rent stabilization in other Villages. Plenty of land exists for developers to building apartment complexes, YET the rent isn't cheap there either. Hum, maybe it's a supply side issue that goes beyond rent stabilization.
You post here as if you are an expert in housing economics. Are you anything even close to that? Judging from your posts in this thread, obviously not. You need to educate yourself by reading the works of those who are really qualified to discuss this ussue.
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. You won't like it.
More? How about the liberal economist Paul Krugman:
"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
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."
The pro-regulation activists can cite the work of no economist - no study, no research - to counter the myriad of housingexperts who have demonstrated the destructive effect that rent control law has on the quality and quantity of housing.
we are talking rent stabilized and rent control only in this thread since thats where the issues are. but then again a landlord can still only do or put in a lease whats allowed in the housing laws even if decontrolled.
.
So then, no market rate landlord can refuse to renew a lease when it expires. Thus all tenants are entitled to lease renewals for LIFE?
Goodness, they must have changed the law again.
I must say, it would be a GOOD idea but alas not one this is likely to go into effect in New York in my lifetime.
Stop playing dumb. You know market rate landlords are not obligated to renew a tenant's lease. And rightfully so. Why should a tenant be entitled to override the owner's decision not to renew. After all...it's the owner's property, not the tenants. And thats the problem with Rent Stabilization. It goes far beyond price control.
For the OP, regarding painting the apartment, what I read in your post is that the new management company would not paint a different color, nor allow their painters to do so. That's because they do not want to set a precedent that since they painted it, any tenant might argue that the management company is not entitled to any compensation for repainting to the original antique white standard. What you need to ask the management company is that if you hire a professional painter that they approve of, outside of their painting contractor, would you be allowed to paint the apartment to the color that you specify. If they agree, you need to get everything in writing, and document it with pictures of the existing condition of the walls attached for your records, and for theirs, so that everyone is in agreement on the issue. If they refuse, and only want the apartment painted antique white, I would encourage you to add color in another manner, such as art, or through decorating, using the antique white pallet. I would not prejudice your lease by defying the landlord with any changes that are not agreeable to all parties, regardless as to whether or not the apartment is stabilized. It's the landlord's property, and they are able to set policies in place through the lease contract, and some will enforce provisions, even those that may seem to be trivial.
Regarding rent stabilization as a whole, any price control on the market strangles supply within the constraints of the control. That's why apartments are routinely built above the minimum threshold, not because there is a lack of demand at mid to lower price tiers, but because the threat of coming under the purview of the RGB makes for a more difficult ownership/management climate.
In short, the bureaucracy and legislative authority of the RGB, which has expanded its parameters in terms of max income, keeps the housing shortage alive and well. One cannot, for example, cancel lease renewals on an older 4-5 story building to demolish and construct a new 8-10 story building that could double the available supply at a given address, at prevailing market rates. In areas of the Bronx, for example, and older, outmoded building that costs too much to remediate at the current rent roll could be removed, along with lead paint, asbestos, and a host of other problems that may be lurking, and a new building that is built to better efficiency standards, etc., thus holding rent at prevailing rates, which may be less than the old building because of the increases in capacity and efficiency of running the building. That would work to lessen the housing shortage in the city, and would remove substandard tenements and other buildings in borderline disrepair, i.e., potential slumlord situations, because there would be incentive for new construction in the private sector, not any of the joint venture public-private morass that results in shoddily constructed housing that is currently operating in the market.
Because of the controls, there is little incentive to invest in the current property, such as an addition or expansion, much less a complete rebuild to increase the supply of housing. The current rent stabilization and older rent control laws are nothing more than a political manipulation of the market to maintain the perception that they are good for everyone. Many economists, from all political persuasions, agree that the system is outmoded and does much more harm to the housing sector than the perceived benefit for the general public, not a specific segment of the market that seeks to represent its own interest in keeping their own bargain rents.
Anti-slumlod provisions are part of housing code in many other cities, and such legislation can be enacted with sufficient enforcement provision outside of a price control. Zoning laws also help in that regard, and are not part of price control legislation. It is possible to have a deregulated rental market that is balanced for both tenants and landlords as is the case in many other cities in the country. Rent control and stabilization were both intended to be temporary programs to cover price gouging during periods of extreme market conditions, but the extension of programs has actually kept the supply of rental housing artificially low, through lack of new construction and attrition to co-ops.
__________________
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)
You post here as if you are an expert in housing economics. Are you anything even close to that? Judging from your posts in this thread, obviously not. You need to educate yourself by reading the works of those who are really qualified to discuss this ussue.
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. You won't like it.
More? How about the liberal economist Paul Krugman:
"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
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."
The pro-regulation activists can cite the work of no economist - no study, no research - to counter the myriad of housingexperts who have demonstrated the destructive effect that rent control law has on the quality and quantity of housing.
I think we should let the experts do the talking, don't you?
Happyreading.
Dmn good post!
Thank you.
Unfortunely, I think the root problem is that people, in general, are:
1) Ignorant, not only of the facts, but of any level of objective thinking. What can you do with the stupid?
2) Self-serving and hypocritical, for many the objective and factual reality can be personally harming when viewed upon the face. Often seeing the benefit of something immediately painful and/or requiring sacrafice requires the capability to view long term and ultimate outcomes.
3) think in the *immediate*.
4) have a general lack of formal education and virtually NO self-education at all!
Together it results in a ruling or governing class which in itself is corrupted by the same effects above, and having to deal with a populous of adults who, effectively, have the minds of children, narrow minded, immature, unthinking, and unknowing.
For example, the links and information of the poster are fantastic, yet if one does not have the compacity to comprehend it what is the use?
If one has never taken a plain economics course, then all the economic fact and proven thesis will have no effect. None!
So, we ALL suffer the ignorance of the next man....
So is the state of our city and nation.
I simply desire the freedom to be free of the next man. This is the concept this nation was founded upon, was it not? Individual freedom.
So then, no market rate landlord can refuse to renew a lease when it expires. Thus all tenants are entitled to lease renewals for LIFE?
Goodness, they must have changed the law again.
I must say, it would be a GOOD idea but alas not one this is likely to go into effect in New York in my lifetime.
What are you talking about?
It is NOT your property. You have no right to it. You do not own it. You made no sacrafice, no risk, no loss, no effort, nor ingenuity, whatsoever of any kind to obtain the property rights, OWNERSHIP. NONE!
There is no FORCE out when your lease is up, NONE!
You simply do not have any right whatsoever, nor any MORAL ground, to occupy property which you do not own.
Once the Lease AGREEMENT has expired, there are no further obligations, nor does the tenant have any further rights.
No one is being forced out.
Rather, it is the Tenant, by continuing to occupy property which the tenant does not own and has no right to occupy, by so doing is stepping upon the Rights of the property owner.
Jeopardizing the Right of the property owner to PROVIDE for himself and his family!
What *RIGHT*, Tenant do you have, by law, or by morality, to so jeopardize the livelihood of another man? To jeopardize, the effort, the ingenuity, the profit, of another man, by what *RIGHT*??
Please respond, if you have any intelligent reasoning. If not, then the thing speaks for itself. You have no right.
1. A landlord can force a tenant out. A tenant CANNOT force a landlord out.
2. A landlord can change the rent...a tenant cannot.
The list is complete.
Q.E.D.
If you ever find it possible to widen your view of the world and apply some levelof objectivity and intelligent thought, please consider the following:
For a small owner (one call hardly be called a LL) with anywhere from 1 to 6 units, a SINGLE non-paying tenant can result in foreclosure and/or bankruptcy.
If the owner happens to live in one of the apartments, the so thought LL becomes homeless and/or scrabling for a place to live, a roof to put over his family!
Simply because of a delinquint tenant.
This scenario can be multiplied and/or altered for scale. A LL may not be losing his home, but he may have to take food off of his family's table, in order to put oil in the tank of his building, as a result of a non-paying tenant and/or too many rent controled/stabilized tenant.
Having a rent controlled/subsidized tenat simply exacerbates ANY interruption in the rent stream as ALL the market rate tenants subsidize the rent of controlled/stabilized tenants.
Consequently, a SINGLE non-paying market rate tenant causes a financial domino effect upon the building's rent roll to the negative. This applies to small and medium size buildings, anywhere from 4, 5, 6, to 30 or 60 unit buildings. The hire the number of controlled/stabilized untis the greater the risk and consequence of a non-paying market rate tenant.
The dynamics of larger buildings and portfolios are somewhat more complicated, and I won't go into.
The reality, which I'm sure YOU, in your continual ignorance, cannot concede, is that INDEED, a tenant CAN "force" a LL "out".
Moreover, a tenant can cause great financial catastrophe to a LL. A tenant can cause a LL to lose his property. A tenant can cause suffering among his co-tenants. A tenant can cause great damage to the LL's property and his means of earning a living and feeding his family.
A tenant can do all this without the consent of government, the law, courts, or the cooperation of law enforcement.
A landlord cannot "force" out a tenant without the consent nor cooperation of the above. HUGE difference.
A tenant WILL NOT and CANNOT be "forced" out UNLESS the tenant WILLFULLY does not pay rent and/or causes a nuiscience. In other words, tenants are not "forced" w/o REASONABLE CAUSE and effect of law.
So, open your mind to what is real, rather than that which exists only btween your ears!
*JColtrane utters something totally banned by forum policy*
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.
reading.
