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.
The article presents this as some huge problem but if you actually do the math with the numbers it gives, we're talking about less than 2 percent of RS apartments occupied by people making more than 200k.
This is a very minor problem with very minor effects on the market.
It's the principle. And there are plenty of seniors who make less than 200K and have millions, plus a summer house in The Hamptons.
there is no principal ,you are wrong , how long you lived in an apartment has no bearing on your net worth.
folks think of poor grand mothers on social security but the fact is rs has nothing to do with financial situations or even the tenants.
it was just an agreement a landlord wouldn't rent gouge and thats all.
who cares what a tenant is worth, they didn't adjust or manipulate their rent the politicians played games with it for political points .
we had a 2nd home we used part time in the summer, we also live full time in an rs apartment my wife lived in for 35 years. so whether we have the money in the bank or we buy a place as long as our primary home is our rs apartment what difference does it make what some one is worth.
you just have a skewed picture about what it is all about. you just think it is a financial issue like affordable housing programs and it is no such thing.
it was never mneant to have anything to do with the tenants finances. the fact is if an apartment had a turnover odds are if it went up for rent it would be at market value anyway and all rent increases the last decade have not only been real market hikes but in many years more than what the non rs apartments were seeing .
this thinking that somehow rs apartments are or should be tied to someones net worth is just another case of the mis-informed believing their own bull-sh#t about what they think it is about.
Last edited by mathjak107; 05-01-2014 at 03:31 AM..
it was just an agreement a landlord wouldn't rent gouge and thats all.
The problem is price gouging in apartment rentals does not exist. It's propaganda by the left. I've proven that several times in older threads. They use the price gouging excuse to justify why RS should exist. RS is still on the books solely because it is politically motivated and the democrats benefit from it so they can stay in power.
I will never understand the concept of being able to pass down your rent stabilized apartment to a close relative, that is, passing down something that you don't own to the next generation. The city council should end this outrage once and for all, but they are totally cowed by the rent control organizations.
The concept was meant for relatives living with the deceased for at least 2 years prior to the death of the tenant on the lease and I would assume in particular for elderly spouses not having to move after living in such an apt. for many years.
Don't leave out the very common scenario.
The landlord in an upcoming area is renting to John Doe for many year. He is paying $600. He moves out and the landlord rents to Mary Smith for $1800 without disclosing the RS rent.
Mary signs the lease and files with DHCR who tells her that there are no records on the apartment since 1997.
I'll bet more apartments "are decontrolled" this way than are decontrolled by high income and rent.
I have been around a fairly long time and I have seen many landlords operate this way and in fact have NEVER seen a case of legal deregulation because rents went over $2500 with tenants earning $200K+
And very few vacancy deregulations because rents went over $2500.
The rule of thumb seems to be that landlords deregulate illegally because City agencies are complicit in this.
I'm sure the landlords here know how very common this sleazy procedure is, even if none will admit it.
I live in a rent stabilized apartment and my landlord didn't raise my rent for 3 lease renewals because he was already charging me market rate. I know for a fact I'm paying the most for my unit compared to similar units in the building. I have met people in the building who have been there for close to 30 years. I'm sure those are the ones paying ridiculously low rents.
I too am with mathjak on this issue and his many insightful posts on this thread.
There is so much misinformation out there on RS. It seems to me that the RS tenants, for the most part, play by the rules, especially since 98% of them aren't in the $200k income range. Those who have income above whatever amount sets people off on this subject, didn't make up the rules. The law is the rule.
I do know of a couple of cases where the LL puts a clause in the lease that "this is not a RS apartment" and when the tenant gets the RS history, they find that it has not been legally destabilized. However, and this is an interesting point, the rent can be less than $2,500 and be legally destabilized. This can happen when the LL entitled to charge more rent than what is being charged. With the annual, or bi-annual increases, as the case may be, computed over time, the LL may be ENTITLED to more than $2,500, but charges less due to market conditions, then a $2,200/month apt can be legally destabilized.
I say, don't blame the tenants. They did not make the rules or write the laws. If they are legally entitled to RS, so be it.
Last edited by bmwguydc; 05-01-2014 at 10:14 AM..
Reason: Orphaned quote removed
And your point? I have no idea what that has to do with rent stabilized apartments not being a form of affordable housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
There are or were quite few RS apartments in those townhouses/brownstones from Fifth to Lexington on the UES. Your average person would never hear of them as they were passed through family or via friends of friends. Maybe someone's daughter or son who was going to college in the City or just starting out post grad. Mistresses, "boyfriends", and others either well connected and or at least knew someone that was.
As many of those buildings have been converted back into private homes numbers of apartments much less RS have dwindled, but they are still around.
What I described is exactly what above post is describing.
They are investing their money into these properties, will eventually raise rent prices as they have been doing the last idk 20 years, and will be "converted back into private homes". I mean ello what in world are multi million dollar condos doing smack right in between rs apartments and right across from the projects?
What did you think I was saying?
Obviously the land lord or some developer bought the people out and there is nothing we can do about that.
Alternatively, the rich ppl moved in, rs apartment became deregulated, left, and hello free market.
As for my example, clearly he renovated those apartment buildings and sold them to the millionaires.
Last edited by MilksFavoriteCookie; 05-01-2014 at 11:11 AM..
It's only purpose is to prevent rent gouging and to regulate the market, nothing more.
Take it from a Landlord like myself who has both Rent Stabilized apartments and free market apartments. Price gouging in apartment rentals does not exist. That is a total myth. Don't believe the hype.
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.
