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.
If you want more afforable housing, there is a HUGE amount of desirable land in industrial, underutilized, blighted areas (alot of the Southern Bronx waterfront from Hunts Point to Yankee Stadium) which are already zoned for mixed use, which can host tens of thousands of affordable mixed income apts. Same goes for lots of sections of Queens and BK. WHAT IS THE DELAY? Why put the onus on LLS??????????????
The problem with this is there is only so much money market rent tenants will pay to live in these areas.
The only way these 50/30/20 (or whatever they are) developments can work, is if the 50 pay astronomical rents. Not happening in the South Bronx.
And I'm not sure they work anywhere, because the 50 might resent paying three times the rent the other 50 are paying.
So let's say a tenant in Manhattan who has occupied an apartment for 40 years passes away. And let's say her rent is $1,500, while the market rent is $5,500 (this is not unrealistic in this market).
So what happens today? The building owner gut renovates the apartment, hires carpenters, plumbers, floor refinishers, electricians, painters, etc. The rent is now $5,500. The new tenant hires a moving company and likely buys new furniture from local stores. The apartment that this tenant vacated may also require some renovation. A new tenant moves in to that apartment, hiring a moving company, and perhaps buying furniture.
So what happens if this moron de Blasio has his way? When the person with the $1,500 rent passes away, instead of being allowed to renovate the apartment and raise the rent to market, there will be some sort of vacancy allowance. Let's say it is, to be really generous, 50% (it won't be that high). So now the landlord can charge $2,250 ($1,500 current rent x 1.5).
You don't know what you're talking about and should be embarrassed.
The current vacancy increase is 20% plus 2.5% of the cost of renovations. When the legal rent goes above the deregulation cap, currently $2,500, the apartment is deregulated and the landlord can charge any amount.
Under current law, in your example, the landlord would automatically get a 20% increase, bringing the legal rent to $1,800. The landlord would then need to spend an additional $28,000 on renovations to deregulate the apartment. Again, this is current law. It has nothing to do with what de Blasio is proposing.
De Blasio has made no specific proposal for how the rent laws might be changed if they are brought under the control of the city. The proposal is only to put them back under the control of the city.
It is highly unlikely that he would suggest what you seem to think - totally eliminating increases for renovations? - though it's hard to tell what you think because you're so confused about the issue.
You don't know what you're talking about and should be embarrassed.
The current vacancy increase is 20% plus 2.5% of the cost of renovations. When the legal rent goes above the deregulation cap, currently $2,500, the apartment is deregulated and the landlord can charge any amount.
Under current law, in your example, the landlord would automatically get a 20% increase, bringing the legal rent to $1,800. The landlord would then need to spend an additional $28,000 on renovations to deregulate the apartment. Again, this is current law. It has nothing to do with what de Blasio is proposing.
De Blasio has made no specific proposal for how the rent laws might be changed if they are brought under the control of the city. The proposal is only to put them back under the control of the city.
It is highly unlikely that he would suggest what you seem to think - totally eliminating increases for renovations? - though it's hard to tell what you think because you're so confused about the issue.
I will forgive you. I forgot to post the link. And I have a total understanding of how deregulation works. No lecture needed.
Why delay the development of what will be a very attractive place to live? It is already happening along the Sheridan Expressway in the West Farms nabe where a new mixed income community with thousands apts is currently replacing a blighted industrial area : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/re...anted=all&_r=0 Instead of putting the onus on LLS, they can build their own as they did with the housing projects, and they are doing in bits and pieces now.
Well that's good news. Are their massive subsidies to the developers? Just curious.
I will forgive you. I forgot to post the link. And I have a total understanding of how deregulation works. No lecture needed.
No, you don't, as I have explained. Your first post is pure nonsense because you don't understand the (rather simple) rules.
As the Daily News article you linked says, very clearly - de Blasio's proposal is to put control of the rent laws in the hands of the city, nothing more or less than that.
The rent regulation scheme is really not that complicated, and you should familiarize yourself with it at least a little before you get over your head like this again.
Long story short in 1971 Albany passed the "Urstadat Law" which took rent control laws away from local areas and gave it to the state legislature. Because of this New York City government is powerless to stop things like luxury vacancy decontrol and so forth.
Outside of New York City and a few other local downstate areas rent control laws are nil to nonexistent. Upstate especially could give a rat's behind about RC and RS and often vote to do anything they can to squash the thing. Sheldon Silver tried once to call the state senate's bluff and it went down to the wire with RC laws almost going the way of the Dodo. He won't do that again....
De Blasio has made "affordable" housing a huge issue and there is a problem not only with building more of it but keeping what exists. Problem is that between luxury/vacancy decontrol and other perfectly legal actions by landlords the numbers of RS apartments in NYC is dropping and will continue to do so.
There is nil to no chance of a below market rate RS apartment remaining so in Manhattan or perhaps some of the "hot" areas of Brooklyn or Queens once vacated. They will be gut renovated and gotten up to or over $2.5K per month to get not only more rent but out of the RS system as well.
De Blasio and the City Council obviously want to put a stop to this and next year's expiration of rent control laws are in their cross hairs.
The last renewal of RS laws was the usual nasty farce but lawmakers in Albany and the governor wisely crafted the thing to expire *after* elections in 2014 when they all would be up for re-election.
Here is the thing, RS control laws passed in many parts of the USA in the 1940's or do to deal with "housing emergencies" have been largely repealed. IIRC outside of NYC perhaps only San Francisco and a handful of others still have such laws on the books. Places like Boston (state of MA) got rid of RS laws long ago and the results have not been as horrible as many predicted. True rents did rise but on average *more* housing that was affordable developed and the overall quality increased.
Why did the above happen? Long story short the housing market was allowed to do what it should have from the get go. Property owners had to compete for renters which means offering value for money.
Everyone in NYC and NYS knows RS is slowly dying out (rent controlled apartments even quicker). Which is what vacancy and luxury control were designed to achieve.
A large number of below market rate rental apartments in the areas of NYC that count (Manhattan (mainly but not exclusively below Harlem), and parts of Brooklyn and Queens are held by Boomers or even their parent's generation. That is persons whose average age is 50 or above. Not everyone is married and or has children or whatever that is entitled to succeed the lease so when they die or otherwise vacate the apartment that will be that.
So what landlord in their right mind would give a total stranger a lifetime lease (you cannot be evicted unless you don't pay the rent) of $2,250, when the tenant upstairs is paying $5,500. The answer - NO LANDLORD.
What provision of anything says that the new tenant will get a "lifetime lease"?
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.
