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.
You can break this down by number of bedrooms or overall rooms, etc.. If rent regulation were removed, this would likely go up, since there still a lot of well below market rate regulated rentals.
How many rentals are well below market rate? Excuse me for explaining the following in a circular way. I'm not sure how to communicate the idea.
What is market rate? If your assumption that market rate would go down overall if these apartments were opened up to the market, lets say by 10%, and the majority or regulated apartments are currently 10% below market (with few or none more than that), then these are already at the market rate, ergo nothing changes.
Quote:
Those rents would be raised. There are a lot of people in those regulated rentals who can only afford to live in NYC because of them.
Yes, but I think the numbers of people who are paying grossly out of proportion to the "market" rate is grossly overestimated. I had friends in one bedroom apartments that were stabilized paying $2100 in Bushwick (four years ago.) I hardly call that subsidized even if it is regulated.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but I don't feel that these people should be essentially subsidized by the property owners, and by extension, the unregulated renters, and the city as a whole.
Another example: The landlord who owns my former apartment bought the building so long ago that the mortgage has been paid for at least 30 years. He charged less than the going rate, but not by a huge amount. The apartment also wasn't maintained. Right now he is charging $6000 a month in rent rolls (for a 2 family + store) in a semi-gentrified area. His taxes on the property are $7000 a year which he passes on to the tenants in the form of rent increases. Other than the water bill and heat bill, and the emergency expenses like a water leak or something like that, the rest is profit; profit enough that he literally lives on the rent rolls. (He is also not regulated due to the size of the building, fyi.) He's not subsidizing anyone. If a new owner/investor does that, he/she went into the situation knowing that. As someone on this forum said, it's on them if they make that choice and they only make that choice if they are receiving a benefit in some capacity.
Quote:
The NYC rental market is usually very tight, mostly because a large number of units are held off the market artificially because of regulation. If regulation went away, a lot of these units would end up on the market.
Why have the prices gone up instead of down? Did you totally ignore the data from the Boston deregulation?
Quote:
Also, regulation retards the ability to replace older, smaller buildings with larger ones with more units. Even with regulation, we're seeing new capacity coming on the market, mostly in formerly industrial areas where dealing with regulated renters isn't an issue (look at LIC.)
That's not part of rent guidelines. That's a different issue. That has to do with zoning.
Quote:
This is already pushing down marginal rents at the top of the market. So removing regulation would accelerate the drop in marginal rents, and spread the drop to lower market segments.
We have seen a drop in marginal rents at the top of the market. The middle and the bottom of the market has increased. As other City Data people have noted, the overall floor, even in the worst neighborhoods, with the crappiest apartments are a lot higher. With or without regulation, why should some of the lowest end apartments in the worst areas be almost the same price as high end apartments? Because it seems that the increases are hitting the lower end of the market.
There is no law that requires non-rent-regulated apartments to be painted every three years or upon each change of tenant, FOR EXAMPLE. There are many, many laws like this that do not apply. Therefore you exaggerate the Draconian rules.
This is ridiculous. For the last time. Painting is not a legal requirement. NYC can never ever require anybody to paint there property.
Using another example, it would be no different than requiring car rental companies to repaint their cars after three years or upon each customer change. That’s how ridiculous your example is. There is something wrong with you.
You basically brought up a ridiculous premise and argued based on that ridiculous premise.
Quote:
Yes, it is hard to get people out of an apartment for months. I'm sure that is the one you are really speaking about.
Months and even years. Tenants can even get millions from landlords/developers in bribe money just to get them to leave.
Quote:
It also takes months and months and months to get a landlord to provide heat or water when he's in violation of the law.
That is a complete lie or likely in your case, also ignorance. If a landlord does not rectify any heat and hot water problem, HPD will fix the problem and bill the landlord. It does not go on for “months and months and months.”
Because it is true. NYC is one of the most crazy liberal cities, up there with crazy SF and yet you are arguing that its rental laws and courts are not liberal.
How many rentals are well below market rate? Excuse me for explaining the following in a circular way. I'm not sure how to communicate the idea.
What is market rate? If your assumption that market rate would go down overall if these apartments were opened up to the market, lets say by 10%, and the majority or regulated apartments are currently 10% below market (with few or none more than that), then these are already at the market rate, ergo nothing changes.
Yes, but I think the numbers of people who are paying grossly out of proportion to the "market" rate is grossly overestimated. I had friends in one bedroom apartments that were stabilized paying $2100 in Bushwick (four years ago.) I hardly call that subsidized even if it is regulated.
Another example: The landlord who owns my former apartment bought the building so long ago that the mortgage has been paid for at least 30 years. He charged less than the going rate, but not by a huge amount. The apartment also wasn't maintained. Right now he is charging $6000 a month in rent rolls (for a 2 family + store) in a semi-gentrified area. His taxes on the property are $7000 a year which he passes on to the tenants in the form of rent increases. Other than the water bill and heat bill, and the emergency expenses like a water leak or something like that, the rest is profit; profit enough that he literally lives on the rent rolls. (He is also not regulated due to the size of the building, fyi.) He's not subsidizing anyone. If a new owner/investor does that, he/she went into the situation knowing that. As someone on this forum said, it's on them if they make that choice and they only make that choice if they are receiving a benefit in some capacity.
Why have the prices gone up instead of down? Did you totally ignore the data from the Boston deregulation?
That's not part of rent guidelines. That's a different issue. That has to do with zoning.
We have seen a drop in marginal rents at the top of the market. The middle and the bottom of the market has increased. As other City Data people have noted, the overall floor, even in the worst neighborhoods, with the crappiest apartments are a lot higher. With or without regulation, why should some of the lowest end apartments in the worst areas be almost the same price as high end apartments? Because it seems that the increases are hitting the lower end of the market.
It does not matter how long ago someone bought a house or apartment. They are entitled to charge whatever rent the market will bear. Landlords are in the business of making money not providing charitable housing. Good for him that he can retire and live on his investment.
I don't see why any landlord should provide cheap housing to random people and not maximize their profit. Why should any landlord continue working to provide cheap housing to tenants if his real estate investment can generate enough money to give him a comfortable retirement?
That is like telling someone that they bought a house for $200k 30 years ago. How dare they sell it for the $800k that it is worth now.
Last edited by LOVEROFNYC; 03-15-2018 at 12:27 AM..
^ Absolutely. Judging from her (his?) wacky positions, roseba appears to be a liberal leftwing socialist.
I am a proud liberal. When did being a liberal equate to something bad? We all won't have the same beliefs. We can be tolerant and argue the merits of our points of view without derogatory terms.
No one ever told their employer that they already get paid enough, they don't need a pay raise. Everyone likes money. Every business is trying to make as much money as they can. Why should landlords with fair market rentals be any different?
I rented one apartment in my life. My rent covered 75% of my landlord's mortgage while I occupied a one bedroom space. I never at any point felt entitled to a cheaper rent because my landlord had the foresight to buy her house many years prior.
I am a proud liberal. When did being a liberal equate to something bad? We all won't have the same beliefs. We can be tolerant and argue the merits of our points of view without derogatory terms.
No one ever told their employer that they already get paid enough, they don't need a pay raise. Everyone likes money. Every business is trying to make as much money as they can. Why should landlords with fair market rentals be any different?
I rented one apartment in my life. My rent covered 75% of my landlord's mortgage while I occupied a one bedroom space. I never at any point felt entitled to a cheaper rent because my landlord had the foresight to buy her house many years prior.
True, even among liberals there are moderate reasonable ones like yourself (judging from the way you sound), and the commie, off the deep end ones, which clearly there are plenty of.
I am a proud liberal. When did being a liberal equate to something bad? We all won't have the same beliefs. We can be tolerant and argue the merits of our points of view without derogatory terms.
Because being liberal in NYC usually means feeling entitled to other people's money and possessions. You will also never see any of the liberals feel thankful to the people who pay high taxes in order to make NYC run. The mentality is always how can I extort more money from you.
Because being liberal in NYC usually means feeling entitled to other people's money and possessions. You will also never see any of the liberals feel thankful to the people who pay high taxes in order to make NYC run. The mentality is always how can I extort more money from you.
Many higher income people are liberals and willing to pay more in taxes individually for the common good.
Countries with the highest quality of life tend to be much more liberal overall than the US.
"...the happiest countries have very different political philosophies from the United States’. Most of the top 10 are social democracies, which “believe that what makes people happy is solid social support systems, good public services, and even paying a significant amount in taxes for that.”
But back to the topic - why shouldn't an owner who's paid the mortgage and dealt with tenants for 30 years be able to live off the rent rolls in retirement? Also I don't know what type of magical building doesn't require maintenance beyond painting and emergency repairs. Time takes it's toll and many buildings here are more than 100 years old. Sometimes things need to be replaced not just "fixed" - roofs and boilers for example. I've got a stoop and retaining wall that will need to be demolished and rebuilt. Not minor expenses by any stretch of the imagination.
This is ridiculous. For the last time. Painting is not a legal requirement. NYC can never ever require anybody to paint there property.
Yes it is, under regulated apartments, but not unregulated. Hence you made my point. Many of your "draconian regulations" do not apply to around 50% of the housing stock.
Months and even years. Tenants can even get millions from landlords/developers in bribe money just to get them to leave.
Millions? Really? It can happen, but those are rare cases, and involve punitive damages. I like how you call it "bribe" money, when really all it is, is two individuals making a business deal. No one is forcing a landlord to offer "bribe" money to get a tenant, who is legally allowed to keep an apartment out. It is the landlord who decides it is in his/her best financial interest to get them out, who offers "bribe" money. I'm sure you would have no qualms if it was any other kind of business deal taking place.
Quote:
That is a complete lie or likely in your case, also ignorance. If a landlord does not rectify any heat and hot water problem, HPD will fix the problem and bill the landlord. It does not go on for “months and months and months.”
We hear about these stories every winter season. This is not new, unless you have selective ingestion of news.
Quote:
Because it is true. NYC is one of the most crazy liberal cities, up there with crazy SF and yet you are arguing that its rental laws and courts are not liberal.
NY is not considered liberal compared to actual liberal places.
It does not matter how long ago someone bought a house or apartment. They are entitled to charge whatever rent the market will bear. Landlords are in the business of making money not providing charitable housing. Good for him that he can retire and live on his investment.
I don't see why any landlord should provide cheap housing to random people and not maximize their profit. Why should any landlord continue working to provide cheap housing to tenants if his real estate investment can generate enough money to give him a comfortable retirement?
There is nothing wrong with profiting on an investment. There is something wrong with characterizing a reasonable rent as "subsidizing" people. He's not. That's similar to people saying they lost money on sales not made. They didn't lose money.
How one uses words matter.
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.
