Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-06-2015, 05:48 PM
 
Location: New Jersey and hating it
12,197 posts, read 7,183,589 times
Reputation: 17462

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelReilly View Post
Yes, rent control lowers supply and drives up rents to an extent.

But what's the alternative? End rent control/stabilization and you will see a bunch of native New Yorkers (disproportionately the elderly) kicked out on the street and replaced by upper class white collar types from elsewhere. The only people who really feel the pain of these high prices are new comers anyways. New Yorkers (and San Franciscans) find a good apartment and keep it in the family. Very few long term residents (been here since birth or for more than 10/15 years) are paying these high rents. It's the people who choose to come here that do. If they think it is too expensive perhaps they should consider a different city, or move to Weehawken and commute.
Anectodal evidence says that you are wrong. The turnover of people in the last 5-10 years is obvious. Native NY'ers displaced by newcomers. Neighborhood after neighborhood have changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2015, 05:53 PM
 
Location: West Harlem
6,885 posts, read 9,904,632 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelReilly View Post
Yes, rent control lowers supply and drives up rents to an extent.

But what's the alternative? End rent control/stabilization and you will see a bunch of native New Yorkers (disproportionately the elderly) kicked out on the street and replaced by upper class white collar types from elsewhere. The only people who really feel the pain of these high prices are new comers anyways. New Yorkers (and San Franciscans) find a good apartment and keep it in the family. Very few long term residents (been here since birth or for more than 10/15 years) are paying these high rents. It's the people who choose to come here that do. If they think it is too expensive perhaps they should consider a different city, or move to Weehawken and commute.
It is definitely just transplants, "new" New Yorkers, who are complaining. And there is something much more to it than just the high rents. A few years ago there was a transplant guy who was obsessed, started a campaign called "rent justice."

They are supported by the developers, who know what will happen if regulation is seriously eroded and want to profit from it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 06:09 PM
 
140 posts, read 266,182 times
Reputation: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
Anectodal evidence says that you are wrong. The turnover of people in the last 5-10 years is obvious. Native NY'ers displaced by newcomers. Neighborhood after neighborhood have changed.
The majority of people are not rent controlled. I am from Williamsburg, I know. My family bought a home in the 70s so I am lucky. Many people got bought out of their rent control as well. However they don't have to leave. The neighborhoods change because people's rent increases, or the rent controlled tenants and even owners like me leave because their friends and neighbors are gone and they feel like strangers on their own block (that's where I'm at right now) but some residents especially ones that are old will turn down a buy out because they are comfortable where they are at.

Neighborhoods change because most apartments ARE market rate. In areas where the majority of places are not market rate the change is less pronounced (see Avenue C in Manhattan or Broadway/Graham Avenue in Brooklyn where there are still plenty of original residents paying $600 for a 3 bedroom mixed in with the yuppies). The areas that change quickest are places like my area (north side which was the middle class Italian part of wburg) because most people there paid market rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 06:47 PM
 
25,556 posts, read 23,892,174 times
Reputation: 10119
Quote:
Originally Posted by WithDisp View Post
I think the best bet is for people to begin to move elsewhere.
All cities would lose their momentum given too high a degree of population.

New York is more expensive than Detroit.
New York is a better fit for some.
Detroit is a better fit for others.
I know some Texans who can afford New York but would never want to live there.
I know some Detroiters who would love to live in New York but just can't afford it.


At the end of the day a certain amount of money is required for a quality of life in a city.
If everyone wishes to live in New York City, the poor will have a relatively low quality of living.
People have been moving somewhere else for quite some time. And others have been moving in to replace them. NYC has been high demand for a long time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 06:50 PM
 
25,556 posts, read 23,892,174 times
Reputation: 10119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
Then don't complain about housing prices and rents going up. If you think density ruins your quality of life, move to some other city... this is New York.


If you want rents to stabilize, there should be a blanket increase of air rights to 15-20 FAR all along all subway stops in the city, excluding landmarked areas. If you don't want this, pay your 2000-3000 rent for 1 bedroom and get room mates and don't complain.
They would rather housing prices and rents go up and so would I. For that matter they are disproportionately homeowners. Oh and many of those people living in buildings along Queens Blvd are living in co-ops or condos. They aren't renters. Ditto the core section of Jackson Heights. Plus there are a lot of actual houses in Queens.

The community that lives there and that has money and political influence owns property and is not interested in new buildings being built to lower the rent for newcomers. The tight housing market is to their advantage (works really well when you need to sell your unit).

Nobody owns you anything if you want to be able to live in NYC you are going to have to either live where you can afford or work hard to earn more money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 06:52 PM
 
25,556 posts, read 23,892,174 times
Reputation: 10119
Quote:
Originally Posted by allpro123 View Post
What people here do not understand is that the writing is on the wall. NYC as in all 5 boroughs is on a path of higher rents. There's really no way to stop it without having advert effects on the quality of the housing stock. There are many reasons for high rents. Lack of supply is def one of them as so many people are competing for the same apartment. The city is a huge culprit as they keep increasing assessed real estate values/real estate property taxes as well as keep increasing the water & sewage rate. If the city truly cared about providing affordable housing then they would lower real estate taxes and water & sewage rates so the LLs can pass along the savings to the tenants via cheaper rents.

But NYC politicians have a dilemma in that it relies on these RE taxes and W&S revenue (among other revenue streams) to cater to the very demanding unionized government/city workers who get paid very well with pensions, health care and other benefits thats on the tax payer's dime. If NYC lower's taxes, then the city can't offer these hefty salaries and benefits to these union workers. So damned if you do, damned if you don't. It all comes full circle if you ask me.
Bingo. The status quo is in their favor. The city was redeveloped along those lines. Particularly after industry fled NYC, Bloomberg rezoned many industrial areas as commercial and residential. A new demographic moved into those areas, as did new types of companies.

And the city is collecting massive amounts of money off of this.

Some of the real estate taxes also go to the MTA, which is also unionized with excellent benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 06:54 PM
 
25,556 posts, read 23,892,174 times
Reputation: 10119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeventhFloor View Post
False! Go take a look at the zoning maps, then read the zoning text and learn to not put incorrect facts out there.

Zoning Maps - New York City Department of City Planning

For example, in Queens Boulevard in Forest Hills, which is zoned R7, max building height is 80 feet, or 8 stories. Not 3-5 stories max. Should they upgrade zoning along Queens Boulevard? Yes. But don't talk about stuff you don't know about.
The community boards in those areas would need to agree to the zoning upgrade. No community cooperation equals no zoning upgrade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 07:00 PM
 
931 posts, read 798,899 times
Reputation: 1268
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelReilly View Post
Yes, rent control lowers supply and drives up rents to an extent.

But what's the alternative? End rent control/stabilization and you will see a bunch of native New Yorkers (disproportionately the elderly) kicked out on the street and replaced by upper class white collar types from elsewhere. The only people who really feel the pain of these high prices are new comers anyways. New Yorkers (and San Franciscans) find a good apartment and keep it in the family. Very few long term residents (been here since birth or for more than 10/15 years) are paying these high rents. It's the people who choose to come here that do. If they think it is too expensive perhaps they should consider a different city, or move to Weehawken and commute.
The people paying high rents are the newer free market and rent stabilized tenants. The older NYers who have RS apartments for 15, 20, 30+ years are the lucky ones who pay cheap rents and are the ones who truly benefit from RS.

If RS were to end tomorrow, those long term tenants are the ones that will get hit with a big rent increase to put them current with market rents in the area. And rightfully so as they were for decades paying cheap rent. The gravy train has to end soon or later. Other newer RS tenants who despite being RS that are paying market rents will not be affected by the ending of RS.

Now if RS were to end tomorrow, there would have to be a new type of city program created (similar to section 8) were the former RS tenant who genuinely cannot afford market rents, verified via their tax returns, would enroll in such a program where the city pays a pre-determined portion of the rent based on their income and size of family. A very reasonable route to take if RS were to end.

Another option is to just let RS die a slow and painful death. A gradual process to soften the blow.

The bottom line is every single economist whether liberal or conservative all agree that rent control laws do not work. Never did, never will. In the grand scheme of things they do more harm than good. They drive up rent prices and NYC is living proof of that. They create a culture of building neglect and decay as LLs of RS apartments have no incentive in wanting to retain a below market rent tenant. The total opposite of a free market tenant where the LLs has an incentive to retain a market rent tenant and thus has to upkeep their building and apartment or risk losing the tenant and increase the LL's vacancy loss plus the trouble of finding a qualified tenant which all combined affects the LL's bottom line.


What people forget is that a LL's livelihood in a free market environment is based on retaining their tenants and keeping vacancy rates low. In other words, the LLs prefers the tenant not to move. The LL must be on his "A" game to retain his tenants or they walk.

But with RS, its counter productive as the LLs wants the below market rent RS tenant to move. The LL pretty much has to be in his "F" game and make life so unpleasant and miserable to get the below market RS out.

Two totally different objectives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 07:11 PM
 
33,886 posts, read 47,082,096 times
Reputation: 14184
Quote:
Originally Posted by nywriterdude View Post
the community boards in those areas would need to agree to the zoning upgrade. No community cooperation equals no zoning upgrade.
nimby
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence

Forum TOS: http://www.city-data.com/forumtos.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Planet Earth
1,293 posts, read 1,213,359 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude View Post
The community boards in those areas would need to agree to the zoning upgrade. No community cooperation equals no zoning upgrade.
I don't know about that. For instance, Mt. Manressa in Staten Island was a hot mess. Folk petitioned and fought hard (community board members, no doubt) to keep the Jesuits from selling that property to a developer. Guess what the Jesuits did? They sold that massive parcel to the Savo brothers who are currently about to redevelop it. It's slated for a bunch of slung together row homes. I think two hundred, if I'm not mistaken.

Here's some info (back story).

Mount Manressa News, Images, Videos, Classifieds & More - SILive.com

Citizens within a community board don't have that much pull. But then again, I believe it's about where that community board is. They're not all created equal and even I can attest to that. I've witnessed how one CB can get things done, while others can not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:06 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top