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.
I cannot answer all the rent stabilization questions...best to google it! Darkman..the increases are paultry..lets be serious. Costs can be passed on....but they are limited in how much they can pass along at any one time..so thats not a great way either ..i.e. the LL renovates your apt for $25,000, and cannot pass along a 500 a month increase in your rent to pay for the costs.
For capital improvements to the buidling the rent increase can go up to 6% of your rent per year until the percentage is in line with the improvement. So if at the time of the improvement, it is determined that I should pay 18% of my rent for that improvement, my rent can increase by 6% for the next 3 years. That is on top of the lease renewal increase. For improvements within an apartment that you are living in the increase is 1/40th of the total cost. So if the landlord renovates my apartment for $25,000 he can charge me $625.00 more per month, if I allowed him to make the improvements. In 3 years and 4 months he will have recouped his investment and the rent will still be $625.00 more per month. That is how it works. Would I allow him to renovate my apartment for that amount of money? No way. I tend to do my own stuff around the apartment unless it is something that I feel the landlord must take care off, like a leak or anything else that can adversely affect other tenants in the buidling.
To be honest, I really don't see Landlords suffering by being a part of the Rent Stabilization Program nor do I see neighborhoods suffering because of it. It is not based on your salary like some of the newer affordable housing is. You have to take the apartment at what is the going legal rate for that apartment. It also allows many lower - middle class people to live in the city while paying an affordable rent. If all apartments were on the free market then New York would become much more divided in who is able to live here and it would change the dynamic of the city. Or else, a bunch of people would end up sharing a one bedroom apartment just so that they can pay the rent. That is not an ideal situation too me. You would probably end up with 2 types of housing. Free market with astronomical rents (for the average person) and projects.
When someone purchases a building that is rent stabilized they know what the rent roll is already and whether or not it will benefit them owning it. Since landlords are constantly purchasing these buidlings they must make a decent profit from them or else they would not make the purchase. They may not make the most profit as if it was a building that the apartments were renting for market rate but unless they have refinanced they should be increasing their profit margin each year. And if the building is paid for, most of the rent roll is gravy, minus operating expenses of course.
The prices that are being stated for the apartments seem pretty low to me considering that over 14 years ago I was paying $850.00 for a rent stabilized apartment because that was that apartments rate at that time. I felt like it was market rate. Don't know how much it is going for now but I am sure it is at least $1500.00 which seems to me a pretty decent rent. Now I live in a smaller apartment that is rent stabilized and have been there for many years but my rent is only slightly less than the going rate for comparable apartments in my neighborhood.
I think you need to STOP TALKING OUT OF YOUR **S, Guywithacause because it is very obvious you have extremely limited knowledge of this subject, except to whine that it is "bad." Well, wah wah wah!
EDUCATE YOURSELF on exactly what the rules are for landlords and tenants under Rent Control and Rent Stabilization, and THEN COME BACK HERE AND DISCUSS IT WHEN YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT, OKAY? OTHERWISE YOU ARE WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME WHINING.
As for the example of Grandma with the $97 a month Sr. Citizen rent control, she HAS improved the apartment: all new electric, all new appliances, etc. Her landlady LOVES her and is not upset that she pays so little as far as we can tell. The landlady is very nice to her. She is the last tenant in the building with Sr. Citizen Rent Control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guywithacause
I believe fairness is market rate..which is how much the market will bear...that is how everything is priced in our society..cost versus benefit. If it is not worth it to people, the price comes down to a new equilibrium, and vice versa...there is no other fair measure. What is happening now with rent stabilization is not fair, but a greatly skewed and abhorrently low rent, so low that median rents in NYC is $850!! Clearly..something is wrong here.
You do not know what you believe. What you said above is exactly the opposite of what you say below. Are you studying to be a politician?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guywithacause
Yes secession rights are part of the laws, and I really have no problem with them at all. The problem I have is a secession right on grandma's $97 rental so that you also pay the same $97. Any reasonable person should have a problem with that. Again...I am being quite reasonable.
No, you are showing how IGNORANT you are on the subject on which you are holding forth. If Grandma moves out of state to live with her daughter and uncle decides to stay in the apartment, he will not have it under $97 a month Senior Citizen Rent Control. It will go up quite a bit, but not to what is considered market rate. ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU ARE TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER, PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF FIRST.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guywithacause
As I have stated, any system that has median rents at $529 anywhere in NYC in 2008 is not a good sytem..any reasonable person would not agree. Do we need to do away with rent stabilization. Nope...do we need to fix this broken system...YES....that is fair and reasonable.
A few paragraphs above you say that "market rate" is the way to go; now you say that we "should not do away with rent stabilization." You are talking out of both sides of your **s.
As for Rent Control and Rent Stabilization, I agree, the prices of the rent in many cases are way outdated and some tenants are making out like bandits. BUT THAT IS THE LAW. IT IS LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THESE PARTICULAR LAWS, DON'T BUY A BUILDING THAT HOUSES TENANTS THAT ARE RENTING UNDER THESE LAWS.
Why do these laws stay on the books? Because the VOTERS of NYC far outnumber the LANDLORDS of NYC and the politicians know that.
Last edited by I_Love_LI_but; 05-15-2008 at 09:16 PM..
Regarding other commodities like food, oil, etc..I agree that right now oil and other commodities have nothing to do with supply and demand...that is exactly my point! You cannot base pricing on simply demand vs supply, as there are other variables that effect pricing...so the models do not apply.
That statement above takes the cake for the most woefully uninformed statement on here.
Oh really? So the massive industrialization of China and India and their ever-increasing need for oil, which greatly affects supply and demand, has nothing to do with the rising price of oil?
When someone purchases a building that is rent stabilized they know what the rent roll is already and whether or not it will benefit them owning it. Since landlords are constantly purchasing these buidlings they must make a decent profit from them or else they would not make the purchase. They may not make the most profit as if it was a building that the apartments were renting for market rate but unless they have refinanced they should be increasing their profit margin each year. And if the building is paid for, most of the rent roll is gravy, minus operating expenses of course.
***applause***
Someone who knows what he is talking about and can face reality.
Lets not kid ourselves. No landlord is happy with a tenant who pays under $100 a month in rent. If you honestly think that I think you're the one talking out of your a$$
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but
I think you need to STOP TALKING OUT OF YOUR **S, Guywithacause because it is very obvious you have extremely limited knowledge of this subject, except to whine that it is "bad." Well, wah wah wah!
EDUCATE YOURSELF on exactly what the rules are for landlords and tenants under Rent Control and Rent Stabilization, and THEN COME BACK HERE AND DISCUSS IT WHEN YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT, OKAY? OTHERWISE YOU ARE WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME WHINING.
As for the example of Grandma with the $97 a month Sr. Citizen rent control, she HAS improved the apartment: all new electric, all new appliances, etc. Her landlady LOVES her and is not upset that she pays so little as far as we can tell. The landlady is very nice to her. She is the last tenant in the building with Sr. Citizen Rent Control.
You do not know what you believe. What you said above is exactly the opposite of what you say below. Are you studying to be a politician?
No, you are showing how IGNORANT you are on the subject on which you are holding forth. If Grandma moves out of state to live with her daughter and uncle decides to stay in the apartment, he will not have it under $97 a month Senior Citizen Rent Control. It will go up quite a bit, but not to what is considered market rate. ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU ARE TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER, PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF FIRST.
A few paragraphs above you say that "market rate" is the way to go; now you say that we "should not do away with rent stabilization." You are talking out of both sides of your **s.
As for Rent Control and Rent Stabilization, I agree, the prices of the rent in many cases are way outdated and some tenants are making out like bandits. BUT THAT IS THE LAW. IT IS LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THESE PARTICULAR LAWS, DON'T BUY A BUILDING THAT HOUSES TENANTS THAT ARE RENTING UNDER THESE LAWS.
Why do these laws stay on the books? Because the VOTERS of NYC far outnumber the LANDLORDS of NYC and the politicians know that.
When a landlord makes major capital improvements, and DHCR approves the 6% increase, it goes into the base rent forever, even after the improvements have been paid off.
My mother, who lived in a stabilized apartment for 33 years, requested a new refrigerator, as hers was there long before she was and starting to go on the fritz. The landlord -- one of the city's largest, but one with whom she had a friendly personal relationship -- noted that a new fridge (and it was the kind of building that would install new, rather than reconditioned) would mean an MCI increase. "Forget it," she said, "I'll buy my own." Didn't matter. Even if she bought her own, her rent would be increased to incorporate a percentage of the price, so she'd be paying twice! The law. Poor, poor landlords. The issue was unresolved when she died suddenly, her apartment became vacant and the new tenant (who surely got a new fridge) moved into an apartment that was legitimately deregulated, as my mother's rent was close to $2,000.
But getting back to tenants making improvements -- if they put new flooring in the kitchen, for example, can't the cost of the cost of the tiles be calculated into the rent as an MCI?
A year or so ago, my landlord did make significant improvements not only to the public areas of the building but also to my apartment. Could have filed for MCI. They never did. If the landlord (who, again, bought the building within the past three years knowing the status of the units) is losing a fortune, you'd think they'd be passing along the MCI, right? Right, Guy? Huh? I don't know why they didn't because they are in fact, in law and in my humble opinion, entitled.
Lets not kid ourselves. No landlord is happy with a tenant who pays under $100 a month in rent. If you honestly think that I think you're the one talking out of your a$$
Yeah I know. I wasn't being very tactful, but sometimes you have to go overboard to get through to somebody.
Where did I say the landlady was HAPPY because grandma only pays $97 a month? More like what I mean is she is not devastated because of it. I am sure she is not thrilled with that, but nonetheless she is very nice and friendly to grandma. The landlady knew what the deal was before she purchased the building. I am sure she would rather be able to rent the apartment for market rate, but she's not a whiner in need of a waaaaaambulance.
Another thing that is screwed up about rent control / rent stabilization is that tenants are allowed to OWN houses and apartments and still keep their rent controlled / stabilized apartment as their "primary residence." I say this is wrong because:
Real property they OWN should be considered their primary residence, not what they rent.
If they can afford to buy real property, then they don't NEED rent control / rent stabilization. Although the program is not a need-based one per se, it still should be taken away from people who can buy THEIR OWN property and therefore can live in it.
I know people in rent controlled / rent stabilized apts. in Manhattan who also own "summer homes" in upstate NY, PA, NJ and LI. They are truly getting over.
A unit is regulated, not the person occupying it. The exception is when the stabilized rent reaches $2,000 and the tenant's age and income determine whether or not it remains stabilized.
Yes, some RC or RS tenants have multiple homes, and there's something wrong with that. The landlord should be entitled to deny them renewal rights if they file income taxes from their other home (which I'm sure some do, given New York taxes). That's the only solution I can think of.
Thanks Mead...I am reading alot of unnecessary vitriol (good word!) and excuses to somehow convince everyone that rents in NYC of $100 a month is not only fair, but clearly is good for NYC and doing a great service to the city, as well as making LLs rich. They can try their best to justify it to themselves, and spin it however they like, but you can bet that if the shoe were on the other foot, they would be here complaining nonstop about the ridiculously low rents and gargantuan costs of maintaining/operating in NYC.
And that is the bottom line.
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.
Educate Yourself Please
