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.
There are 3 things essential for the survival of Human Beings. They are: Food, Healthcare and Housing. That we ALL agree.
Ok people...the point is treat everyone fairly. Don't single out landlords and have them subsidize tenants while every other essential industry for human survival is NOT forced to subsidize their costumers.
Why is that so HARD to understand? I don't get it.
I gave my reply in previous post concerning this. I think a tax rebate should be given where the landlord's of RS buildings that are losing money, breaking even, or making very little profit up to a certain percent would qualify. This should be reviewed yearly.
You may not qualify because you clearly make a decent profit, you are able to pay yourself and your wife a combined salary of 100K. Most landlord's and their spouses have to work or own other businesses, and the income generated from the property is considered additional income. You could get a job or invest in some other type of business if this isn't enough money.
No one is singleling out landlord's. A supermarket owner in a lower income neighborhood may make a decent profit because his/her rent and operating cost may be lower than an owner of supermarket in the UWS. However the UWS supermarket owner will probably make more in the long run. That is the way the system works. If you want more sell and buy a market rate building on the UWS. There are some for sale.
Can you read well? First of all we are talking about rent stabilization (RS) not rent control. I have recently posted 2 post that state I am against someone or household making that much money and being allowed to rent an RS apt.
Stop trying to rewrite my post.
DAS:
1. Firstly, I can run rings around you on the terminology and laws of NY rent regulation. I have been in the business for a long time. "Rent controls" is often used as a generic term for government intervention in the rental market. There is no one in this thread who has disseminated more false and misleading info guised as facts than you. I have frequently pointed them out.
2. Read your own previous post. You repeatedly said that you support RS for those not making more than $175,000 (can we assume now $240,000)? It's shameful that there is any support at all for tenants with incomes anywhere near 175K or 240K being the beneficiaries of government intervention to artificially control their rents! If you would now like to change what you said then that's fine, but don't accuse me of rewriting your post.
Last edited by lamontnow; 02-05-2009 at 11:00 AM..
DAS:
1. Firstly, I can run rings around you on the terminology and laws of NY rent regulation. I have been in the business for a long time. "Rent controls" is often used as a generic term for government intervention in the rental market. There is no one in this thread who has disseminated more false and misleading info guised as facts than you. I have frequently pointed them out.
2. Read your own previous post. You repeatedly said that you support RS for those not making more than $175,000 (can we assume now $240,000)? It's shameful that there is any support at all for tenants with incomes anywhere near 175K or 240K being the beneficiaries of government intervention! If you would now like to change what you said then that's fine, but don't accuse me of rewriting your post.
You can't run rings around me, you just hope that I will tire and stop posting. I won't, because I love the debates on the forum. I am not here for rep points or anything else. Just to tell the truth. I am not trying to be a lawyer, because if I were I obviously couldn't really post. I would just defend which ever side was paying me. I am only giving my opinion.
Your efforts will effect most of the working/middle class people in this city. This is what I care about. Nothing I have stated is false. Mostly everything you have stated is. Especially when you are trying to rewrite my post. I never get angry on this forum. No one ever upsets me. It is all just a difference of opinion. You have yours, and I have mine. I don't think you are correct, and you don't think I am correct. It is nothing wrong with that.
For all the talk about Rent Stabilzation that we have been doing on this thread and in the NY forum, I just wanted to point out that some landlords tend to like Rent Stablized apartments and do not deregulate upon the 2000 threshold. A casual review of Craigs List has the following listed as Rent Stabilized apartments:
- 4 bedroom in Tribeca - rent 5500.00 per month
- 2 bedroom in Harlem - rent 2150.00 per month
- 3 bedroom in Midtown - rent 3350.00 per month
- 2 bedroom in Prospect Heights - rent 2299.00 per month
The rent stabilization is listed as an amenity for prospective tenants.
DAS, I'm not going to get into a war of insults with you, and I don't care if you post until the cows come home. But you conveniently ignored my point about your support for rent protections for those well beyond working class. Someone with an income of near 175K or 240K is not working/middle class and shouldn't be afforded special treatment. It's an important point and it's one I thought we could all agree on. I guess I was wrong.
Last edited by lamontnow; 02-05-2009 at 11:23 AM..
Lamontnow that is the only thing so far that we agree on. I'll repeat, I think that $175K is to high of an income to live in an RS apt. I have stated that on every thread concerning this subject. You have not stated what you think a reasonable income limit should be, therefore I cannot comment on that.
Lamontnow that is the only thing so far that we agree on. I'll repeat, I think that $175K is to high of an income to live in an RS apt. I have stated that on every thread concerning this subject. You have not stated what you think a reasonable income limit should be, therefore I cannot comment on that.
OK. good. You repeatedly used the term "more than". That income "more than" 175K is too high. I think that even close to 175K is too high.
So let's at least work together to stop the insanity of the state legislature which, at the behest of the RS tenant lobby, is about to increase the limit to 240K! It should be lowered, not raised. Write your State Senator.
BTW, I own one small building of mostly studios and have no wealthy tenants. So I'm not hurt by this ridiculous income limit. But it irks me and it's one point we can agree on.
Lamontnow: I used that term because that is what is has been for a while, I really thought I was making myself clear that it is too high, by the rest of what I wrote. I don't agree with your idea of deregulation upon vacancy. This is why.
While you and A-Better-Bronx-2-morrow may be very reasonable in the rates that you would charge, I really don't think that everyone will be. There has been a lot of overcharging and extortion in Boston. I think that some individuals will profit way too much if deregulation would go into effect upon vacancy. Maybe there should be a minimum rent charge that should be reviewed regularly for lower income areas of the city. By this I mean lower income working/middleclass. I understand that a landlord does need a certain amount of rent to operate the building properly.
Keep in mind that you may not be happy with any type of regulation, but something has to be in place for the average working person. The wealthy can take care of themselves.
I think a tax rebate should be given where the landlord's of RS buildings that are losing money, breaking even, or making very little profit up to a certain percent would qualify. This should be reviewed yearly.
You may not qualify because you clearly make a decent profit, you are able to pay yourself and your wife a combined salary of 100K.
Das...I don't make a decent profit. 50K for myself, an owner of a 50 unit apartment building is shameful and quite embarassing. You and probably half the forum makes more than me. And many on this forum aren't owners of their own business. They work for somebody. They have a boss.
After paying all expenses, I make about a 3K-4K profit every month during the winter season and 6K-7K during the summer. Those numbers reflect IFALL tenants pay their rent, if all the apartments are occupied and IF no apartments are being renovated which is a huge expense. The profit obviously dips if I have vacancies and if I have delinquent accounts.
Any profit I do make goes into RESERVE to pay for my upcoming BIG bills like my property tax of 63K a year plus 34K for water and sewage. So my so called "profit" isn't really a profit if I'm saving it to pay those huge bills. It may be a profit for the moment but in a couple of months, it'll be all wiped out.
I guess I must have high standards for a business owner who wants to reap the rewards of ownership and capitalism this country supposably was founded on because personally, I don't think my salary of 50K and my wife's salary of 40K is anything to brag about.
You can be a "regular" worker, working for somebody and earn way more than 50K a year.
A-Better-Bronx-2-morrow I understand and I have taken into consideration the reserves that you need for repairs and what ever else. But you are still able to pay yourself that salary after all is said and done. A lot of landlord's can't do that. You are also able to do this with one building. Do you think that you may need to purchase or invest in another business or property in order to get more money? Your building is in a solidly middle class neighborhood. I have a close friend that owns a house up there with her husband. It is a good neighborhood. But people are not wealthy up there. I think most of the people that may rent from you would probably would just buy their own houses, or a coop, if they are able to. That is mostly what type of people live in that area.
I applaud all your efforts to make the Bronx a better place. I agree with a lot of what you say about keeping the areas clean and quiet. I wouldn't call people names, or use harsh language, or blame it on one or two groups of people though. I will call the police in a minute if people congregate in front of my building, or in the halls. If you let bad habits get started they just escalate.
I hope that you can understand that some landlords don't even live in the neighborhoods where their buildings are located. They could care less about the people in the neighborhood. Because of this, they would not think anything about extortion and over charging people.
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.
