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.
My rent stabilized apartment has a new managing agent, Rose Associates. They say I cannot have their painters paint my walls with anything other than an ugly matte white, even if I pay for the paint.
1. Do I have the right to paint the walls myself? (a soft peach and a soft yellow)
2. If so, do I have to get permission first?
3. If I do not ask and do it anyway, can they force me to repaint it white?
4. Can they raise my rent or try to evict me if I paint it myself?
I just had the floors refinished at my expense and they made it very clear that just because they let me do that did not mean I could ever do anything else, even if I pay for it. Exactly what are the rules with respect to making the place look nicer at my own expense?
You answered your own question with your posted statement. You asked they answered no. Deal with the ugly matte white and find another home soon. If you want things YOUR way you need to purchase YOUR OWN HOME. Why would you put that much money into an apartment that is not yours?
Forgive my ignorance....but this thread caught my attention.....
What is a rent controlled apartment? Does that mean they cant raise the rent or something??
the apartment is actually rent stabilized. the max rent is decided by a board set up by the city but its really been a ploy to win votes more than helpful.
basically it means when you take on a tenant he becomes a member of your family. you have to renew his lease and the lease of his children forever.
it means you have to help subsidize them out of your pocket based on just the length of time they lived in your apartment regardless of their net worth.
it means i have to pay them as much as 100k to buy out the lease on property i own and they did nothing but become a tenant.
the apartment is actually rent stabilized. the max rent is decided by a board set up by the city but its really been a ploy to win votes more than helpful.
basically it means when you take on a tenant he becomes a member of your family. you have to renew his lease and the lease of his children forever.
it means you have to help subsidize them out of your pocket based on just the length of time they lived in your apartment regardless of their net worth.
it means i have to pay them as much as 100k to buy out the lease on property i own and they did nothing but become a tenant.
any other questions?
Okay, this is a somewhat negative view on rent stabilization. I think it's important to remember that in general we're talking about buildings with more than 6 units constructed prior to 1974. I think of the laws as almost "anti-slum lord" rules, because that's really what we're talking about. Caps on rent increases, guaranteed certain levels of service, anti-harassment, etc. are good things for tenants.
As far as subsidizing high net worth individuals living in rental stabilized apartments, if that's their choice, what difference does it make? Someone would rent the apartment either way. We need more affordable choices in apartments and not less. If someone has the resources to purchase a building with 6 or more apartments, IMO there should be some rules protecting the 6 or more families living in those units.
Stories abound about the 80 year old woman paying $150 a month to live in TriBeCa. These cases are the exception, not the rule. I think it's often the other way around, the tenant paying lower than the legal regulated rate, because the market rate is lower.
no we are not talking anti slum laws at all when it comes to rent stabilization.
where did you dream that up?
housing laws that have to do with habitability apply to every apartment regardless of their status.
rent stabilization is doing nothing for most of the renting public..
it doesnt even benefit anyone who hasnt been in an apartment for decades now. anyone who has gotten an apartment over the last decade is pretty much at market rate.
my biggest gripe is no tenant should be forced on a landlord forever anymore than you should be forced to keep whatever job you first took even if your unhappy there and are earning below market wages.
we arent even forced to keep our spouses forever.
you want those in the real estate business to be forced to keep their job forever but not you? real estate is a job just like the way you earn your living.
as a landlord i have my own investment plan for dealing with stabilization but the fact is its a big pile of bull sh*t the public has been led to believe that some how they are benefiting themselves from
so you have the public championing for something they have little to no understanding of like yourself and the reality is the public have no benefit or perhaps never will benefit from what they think they are championing for.
in fact with most rentals having been converted to co-op decades ago unless city owned the chances of even getting a stabilized apartment grow less and less as existing apartments become destabilized as tenants leave or die.
its like i think milk and farm products need to be stabilized and regulated so they dont rise.
it sounds good, it sounds like something i want , but the reality is i dont know the first thing about farming, the dairy business or anything elses that goes on in those industries and what i want may be a bad idea once i learn the ins and outs of the industry..
Last edited by mathjak107; 05-03-2012 at 04:36 AM..
Okay, this is a somewhat negative view on rent stabilization. I think it's important to remember that in general we're talking about buildings with more than 6 units constructed prior to 1974. I think of the laws as almost "anti-slum lord" rules, because that's really what we're talking about. Caps on rent increases, guaranteed certain levels of service, anti-harassment, etc. are good things for tenants.
As far as subsidizing high net worth individuals living in rental stabilized apartments, if that's their choice, what difference does it make? Someone would rent the apartment either way. We need more affordable choices in apartments and not less. If someone has the resources to purchase a building with 6 or more apartments, IMO there should be some rules protecting the 6 or more families living in those units.
Stories abound about the 80 year old woman paying $150 a month to live in TriBeCa. These cases are the exception, not the rule. I think it's often the other way around, the tenant paying lower than the legal regulated rate, because the market rate is lower.
What a bunch of bulls-t. Please stay in Florida. We don't need people like you with your entitlement mentality living in NY. You know absolutely nothing about Rent Stabilization.
That's why I left NYC; the housing laws there are sometimes nonsensical, frequently unreasonable but always tilted in favor of landlords over tenant's rights.
I know I'm right but you have it backwards. The Rent Stabilization laws are PRO-TENANT and ANTI-LANDLORD. Everyone knows that. Tenants have more rights to their apartments than the actual OWNER. Isn't that insane? So please stop with your misinformation. Obviously you know nothing about RS otherwise you wouldn't have said that comment.
Okay, this is a somewhat negative view on rent stabilization. I think it's important to remember that in general we're talking about buildings with more than 6 units constructed prior to 1974. I think of the laws as almost "anti-slum lord" rules, because that's really what we're talking about. Caps on rent increases, guaranteed certain levels of service, anti-harassment, etc. are good things for tenants.
As far as subsidizing high net worth individuals living in rental stabilized apartments, if that's their choice, what difference does it make? Someone would rent the apartment either way. We need more affordable choices in apartments and not less. If someone has the resources to purchase a building with 6 or more apartments, IMO there should be some rules protecting the 6 or more families living in those units.
Stories abound about the 80 year old woman paying $150 a month to live in TriBeCa. These cases are the exception, not the rule. I think it's often the other way around, the tenant paying lower than the legal regulated rate, because the market rate is lower.
Caps on rents are against the overall interest of the tenant population. Rents MUST be in relation to Costs and provide a level of Profit which incents development. It is development meeting and more directly exceeding Demand which, in effect and in reality, puts downward pressure on market prices/rent.
Controls/caps do PRECISELY the opposite!
Which is why NYC has such high rents, exceeding average income, and so little development of what w/b considered 'affordable' housing. There is virtually NO unsubsidized housing built in this city for the middle or low end market---NONE!
This is a direct reflection and consequence of rent controls, as well as the onerous difficuties and costs of building in NYC.
Note, at the high end of the market where there are no controls development is strong and even coninues through this recession. No controls, high profit, build, build, build!
Ultimately, it is 'market saturation' of product which creates low prices/rents. Rent controls prevent this from occuring, as the market does not meet demand.
A few Economics courses goes a long way, with just a little common sense and objective viewing.
Lastly, note, in most of the rest of the country where market forces are allowed to work, housing is ample, of good condition, and reasonably affordable for most people!
Oh, and 90% of that population, in the rest of the country, does NOT live in 'slum' conditions. Actually, their living conditions exceed by a good factor the quality of housing of the majority of NYC housing.
So, again, rent controls not only are the cause of exorbitant rents, but also the cause of the continuation of comparatively (to the rest of the usa) substandard housing.
If it is not written in stone, you can get away with it. That is how I see it. Some managers might take advantage of peoples disablities, or lack of knowledge, and do all kinds of things towards the renters.
Elderly people who are living on reduce rent earned that by living their for long periods of time. I could have been living in a rent, without increased place for $800 and three bedrooms, two bathrooms, long hallway, long kitchen, with dining area big living room, one time. Because that was the agreement with the previous owner. But no, nobody wanted to give me the apartment, or take the apartment when the person died.
Caps on rents are against the overall interest of the tenant population. Rents MUST be in relation to Costs and provide a level of Profit which incents development. It is development meeting and more directly exceeding Demand which, in effect and in reality, puts downward pressure on market prices/rent.
Controls/caps do PRECISELY the opposite!
Which is why NYC has such high rents, exceeding average income, and so little development of what w/b considered 'affordable' housing. There is virtually NO unsubsidized housing built in this city for the middle or low end market---NONE!
This is a direct reflection and consequence of rent controls, as well as the onerous difficuties and costs of building in NYC.
Note, at the high end of the market where there are no controls development is strong and even coninues through this recession. No controls, high profit, build, build, build!
Ultimately, it is 'market saturation' of product which creates low prices/rents. Rent controls prevent this from occuring, as the market does not meet demand.
A few Economics courses goes a long way, with just a little common sense and objective viewing.
Lastly, note, in most of the rest of the country where market forces are allowed to work, housing is ample, of good condition, and reasonably affordable for most people!
Oh, and 90% of that population, in the rest of the country, does NOT live in 'slum' conditions. Actually, their living conditions exceed by a good factor the quality of housing of the majority of NYC housing.
So, again, rent controls not only are the cause of exorbitant rents, but also the cause of the continuation of comparatively (to the rest of the usa) substandard housing.
I agree! The sad part is no matter how many facts and articles you throw in the faces of these Pro-Rent Stabilization advocates, they still refuse to believe it and always come up with an excuse to justify Rent Stabilization. Talk about being stubborn.
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.
big living room, one time. Because that was the agreement with the previous owner. But no, nobody wanted to give me the apartment, or take the apartment when the person died.
