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.
[quote=allpro123;38718186]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.
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.
Rent stabilization can end after a certain number of years (depending upon when the parcel was built). So that in my opinion is what is causing the high rate of rents. The turnover (like someone else mentioned) of the units that were once in one of three RS programs.
If RS were to end tomorrow and some other program was put into place it would be similar to rent control or rent stabilization. So bother it to begin with? Does that make sense to you?
I think we have to be clear on what Rent Stabilization vs. Rent controlled are as well. There is obviously at least three programs under 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.
Not that I agree or disagree with this happening- but why under any circumstance should the city pay a portion of someones rent just simply because they can't afford what they used to be able to afford?
Let them move to cheaper parts of the city, or to Newark.
Better yet, for those who cry foul the employers need people to work cheap- let them raise the rate they pay their employees.
Not that I agree or disagree with this happening- but why under any circumstance should the city pay a portion of someones rent just simply because they can't afford what they used to be able to afford?
Let them move to cheaper parts of the city, or to Newark.
Better yet, for those who cry foul the employers need people to work cheap- let them raise the rate they pay their employees.
I agree but the ruling class of NYC liberal Democrats would unfortunately never allow that to happen. The problem is (particularly in Manhattan) that you have many RS tenants that make six + figure incomes that would never qualify for such a program once it's verified via their tax returns. So what do these people do? They would put up resistance, march in streets and in front of City Hall to stop such a change and use the typical scapegoat rhetoric of grandma being priced out or how this supposedly will negatively affects minorities. All BS but thats what they would try to feed the public to get their sympathy to sway their decision. The real reason is they know full well that they would not qualify for such a program due to their high income and the days of insanely cheap rents are over.
To make matter worst, if these below market RS tenant profiteer off their cheap RS and sublet it out, such a change in the law would put an end to their cash cow of profiteering off the landlord's back. So they will fight to the death to make sure such a change doesn't happen. And Democrat politicians will back them up to get their support and votes.
I agree but the ruling class of NYC liberal Democrats would unfortunately never allow that to happen. The problem is (particularly in Manhattan) that you have many RS tenants that make six + figure incomes that would never qualify for such a program once it's verified via their tax returns. So what do these people do? They would put up resistance, march in streets and in front of City Hall to stop such a change and use the typical scapegoat rhetoric of grandma being priced out or how this supposedly will negatively affects minorities. All BS but thats what they would try to feed the public to get their sympathy to sway their decision. The real reason is they know full well that they would not qualify for such a program due to their high income and the days of insanely cheap rents are over.
To make matter worst, if these below market RS tenant profiteer off their cheap RS and sublet it out, such a change in the law would put an end to their cash cow of profiteering off the landlord's back. So they will fight to the death to make sure such a change doesn't happen. And Democrat politicians will back them up to get their support and votes.
I agree with this. You have millionaires who also live in rent stabilized apartments and these apartments are huge. Also you have those who profiteer as well using such things as Air BNB to make a profit off of their rent stabilized apartments. Rent Control board and the state and the city should really allow change that if a family making below 120k can only quality for or remain in rent control apartments. Anyone caught leasing out their apartments to sublets should have their rent control apartments revoked. I know of a lady who is a millionaire and her rent is less than a thousand dollars. She is old and her grandkids are scrambling for her apartment if she passes. And yes this is a rent controlled apartment, this lady used to be an author for a popular preteen female books during the 80s and 90s.
But overall I think this city does need rent control so that Manhattan and other areas that are becoming un affordable can still have a working class/ middle class persons live in these areas. I don't think rent control systems such as rent stabilized and rent subsidized is what is causing rents to go up for everyone else. Boston got rid of Rent Control, along with their housing projects going private and rents went up. Its simply due supply and demand issue that is causing rents to go up here in parts of NYC and the city along with developers cant not meet the demand for housing units. This is why I'm advocating that the suburbs needs to build multi level housing, town centers with amenities and more suburban job parks so that careerist, suburban educated types from picket white fence don't have to move to NYC for a job and play, they can stay in the burbs.
But overall I think this city does need rent control so that Manhattan and other areas that are becoming un affordable can still have a working class/ middle class persons live in these areas.
Rent control/Rent Stabilization is not needed to keep rents affordable for working class folks. That's a myth. If that were the case the rest of the country would of had rent control laws in their states but they don't and last time I checked, there are working class folks in other state as well living in a non-rent control, free market rental market paying way cheaper rents than NYC. All that rent control laws do is distort the rental market. You technically have two rental markets in NYC working side by side. The free market and rent control market. This set up distorts the rental market and the pricing as well.
Supply and demand is a huge culprit to high rents as is the sky high real estate taxes, as is the rent regulation laws as you can pretty much disregard below market RS apartments towards "available housing units" as those RS units are hoard and kept off the rental market in NYC. Stupid RS succession rights is to blame for that.
Cato Institute did an interesting analysis of NYC Rent Regulations back in 1997. See the graphs of price distribution of rental units. In NYC, there are clearly 2 markets: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or.../pdf/pa274.pdf
Basic economics teaches us that price ceilings lead to shortages.
But overall I think this city does need rent control so that Manhattan and other areas that are becoming un affordable can still have a working class/ middle class persons live in these areas. I don't think rent control systems such as rent stabilized and rent subsidized is what is causing rents to go up for everyone else. Boston got rid of Rent Control, along with their housing projects going private and rents went up. Its simply due supply and demand issue that is causing rents to go up here in parts of NYC and the city along with developers cant not meet the demand for housing units. This is why I'm advocating that the suburbs needs to build multi level housing, town centers with amenities and more suburban job parks so that careerist, suburban educated types from picket white fence don't have to move to NYC for a job and play, they can stay in the burbs.
Suburbs nor cities build housing or job parks.
Ultimately developers do and they do this where they can get the biggest return on their investment.
The return on your investment from NYC is rather obvious. It's the global center of finance.
Nobody outside of NYC knows or cares about Jericho, NY. Multilevel housing there won't have the same demand, and multinational corporations are nowhere near as interested in having operations.
If Uber, Airbnb, or any other tech company that just became big decides to open up a NY office, where will they put it? In NYC PROPER.
And it's not just people from the suburbs moving to NYC or similar cities.
The industrial sector fled NYC, Boston, etc.
With manufacturing down or gone from major cities, they expanded other sectors like tech, film, tv (NY and LA) tourism, education, social services, mental health. These jobs require degrees, if not masters degrees, professional licenses, etc.
So more well to do people moved to big cities for their careers.
The beloved poor of color don't really have a good work ethic went it comes to education, so they disproportionately cannot do well in modern cities. So they get forced out and end up moving to the South.
Ultimately developers do and they do this where they can get the biggest return on their investment.
The return on your investment from NYC is rather obvious. It's the global center of finance.
Nobody outside of NYC knows or cares about Jericho, NY. Multilevel housing there won't have the same demand, and multinational corporations are nowhere near as interested in having operations.
If Uber, Airbnb, or any other tech company that just became big decides to open up a NY office, where will they put it? In NYC PROPER.
And it's not just people from the suburbs moving to NYC or similar cities.
The industrial sector fled NYC, Boston, etc.
With manufacturing down or gone from major cities, they expanded other sectors like tech, film, tv (NY and LA) tourism, education, social services, mental health. These jobs require degrees, if not masters degrees, professional licenses, etc.
So more well to do people moved to big cities for their careers.
The beloved poor of color don't really have a good work ethic went it comes to education, so they disproportionately cannot do well in modern cities. So they get forced out and end up moving to the South.
Actually if you go on the LI forum there is a buzz stirring in recent threads over the past 6 months or so about this very topic. There are some new rentals going up as we speak in Rockville Center and Lynbrook, and people are actually clamoring for their little downtown areas near LIRR stations to be developed. A lot of LIers are growing weary of their commute to NYC and desire employment closer to their residence. Take a look when you have some time.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Rent control/Rent Stabilization is not needed to keep rents affordable for working class folks. That's a myth. If that were the case the rest of the country would of had rent control laws in their states but they don't and last time I checked, there are working class folks in other state as well living in a non-rent control, free market rental market paying way cheaper rents than NYC. All that rent control laws do is distort the rental market. You technically have two rental markets in NYC working side by side. The free market and rent control market. This set up distorts the rental market and the pricing as well.
Supply and demand is a huge culprit to high rents as is the sky high real estate taxes, as is the rent regulation laws as you can pretty much disregard below market RS apartments towards "available housing units" as those RS units are hoard and kept off the rental market in NYC. Stupid RS succession rights is to blame for that.
If it's any consolation rent controlled apartments are rare and only held by old people. When they die the apartments will not be rent controlled as the landlords will do major renovations.
Rent stabilization is more common, but in recent decades there's been a dramatic drop in the number of rent stabilized buildings. In Manhattan, Western Brooklyn,and Western Queens there are many tear downs and gut renovations that end rent stabilized status and replace them with high end housing.
So there really is no incentive for the city or the state to end rent stabilized housing when it is obvious in desirable areas of the city the market is finding ways to erase rent stabilization.
In fact, since to get a rent controlled apartment you had to rent the apartment before 1972, you're pretty old at this point and likely to be DEAD in the next 10 to 20 years.
So what politician is going to want to be seen as picking on poor elderly people so some bratty, childish person can live in the coolest area (particularly when that population is literally dying out).
But even without rent stabilization, there's NYCHA, there are 80/20s, 70/30s, LAMPs and other affordable units that have below market prices.
Rent control/Rent Stabilization is not needed to keep rents affordable for working class folks. That's a myth. If that were the case the rest of the country would of had rent control laws in their states but they don't and last time I checked, there are working class folks in other state as well living in a non-rent control, free market rental market paying way cheaper rents than NYC. All that rent control laws do is distort the rental market. You technically have two rental markets in NYC working side by side. The free market and rent control market. This set up distorts the rental market and the pricing as well.
Supply and demand is a huge culprit to high rents as is the sky high real estate taxes, as is the rent regulation laws as you can pretty much disregard below market RS apartments towards "available housing units" as those RS units are hoard and kept off the rental market in NYC. Stupid RS succession rights is to blame for that.
Supply and demand will always be a problem that faces New York City. Always. Myth or not, de-regulating the RS won't solve the supply and demand aspect. Fact: Not everyone who wants to live here, "can" live here.
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.
