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.
Unfortunately, the loudmouths scare politicians into keeping the system for their own benefit, at the expense of the health of the city and its residents (financial, social, and otherwise). There has to be a better way..why isn't anyone trying?
Because there are people with PULL and CONNECTIONS benefitting from this system. How do you think landlords lose out all the time? In what other arena does the "general public" win out over business interests? I can't think of one except this one where that consistently happens. Even the banks won their long-standing fight to make bankruptcy harder. Yet the landlords of NYC cannot win.
Buildings that were being marketed as condos/co-ops are now being turned into rentals...crazy huh?
Which ones? And please don't tell me about the crap that was built in your beloved Bronx or Far Rockaway, etc., and other marginal areas. I want to hear about ones they can't sell that are actually in DESIRABLE (by that I don't necessarily mean ELITE neighborhoods, it can include "regular" non-ghetto) locations. Because from what I know, apartments in DESIRABLE locations sell.
The housing market is in a big downturn, pick up a paper, and read it yourself. As a result, co-ops and condos are OUT and rentals are IN!
Is that so? So people are abandoning their condos and co-ops and those apartments are becoming rentals again! What papers do you read because obviously I am not reading the right ones with the latest news.
You are right LI...from what you know..condos and coops are not being turned into rentals in Manhattan, and the "crap" built in marginal areas like Bronx and Far Rockaway are. I would recommend getting a subscription to Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and joining a Global Commercial Brokerage Firm, and we can revisit this conversation intelligently when you are more up to speed with me in about 4 years. It will make for good conversation on the board...I think everyone would learn something..
You are right LI...from what you know..condos and coops are not being turned into rentals in Manhattan, and the "crap" built in marginal areas like Bronx and Far Rockaway are.
Gee, did I make a lucky guess?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy
I would recommend getting a subscription to Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and joining a Global Commercial Brokerage Firm, and we can revisit this conversation intelligently when you are more up to speed with me in about 4 years. It will make for good conversation on the board...I think everyone would learn something..
I don't think I could catch up with you in a decade, sorry!
When we mention the word "Rent Stabilization" I don't think its fair to assume that if RS was to be abolished that rents everywhere in NY would spike up to Manhattan prices because Manhattan is totally on another level than the rest of the 5 boroughs.
People think that if RS were to be abolished, that the Bronx (cheapest rents in the NY) will have $5,000 apartments just like Manhattan does....that will never be the case.
That flies in the face of eco 101 and what history demonstrates. Market rents wouldn't drop suddenly. The increased supply would eventually flow into the market and reduce rents as the formerly low-rent tenants vacated. The most recent example was in Mass. in the 90's when rent regs were abolished in some areas including Boston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scatman
That's not what folks I know in Beantown are telling me.
Me neither, I thought that Boston had one of the highest rental markets in the country so if rents went down when regulations were abolished regulated apartments must have been sky high.
Economics is part science there are definite formulas that have proven to work. However the correct title for economics is Political Econmomics this title is used in all the rest of the world. This is because the powerful and wealthy use the science of Economics to their advantage.
Using just the "supply and demand" theory is just a small portion of economics. So small in fact, it is like someone memorizing the chemistry periodic table, and then claiming to understand chemistry. It is a good start, just like a small child learning to count to ten.
If the science of economics and its formulas were truly applied, the world would not be in the situation that it is now, with the crisis we are all in. It is following the political part of this that has done us all in. None of the very powerful and wealthy wanted to heed to the warnings of the Economist of this world.
So in reading some of these landlord post, do your own research. When studying it know who wrote what you are reading, and what their interest is in it. As for most tenants it is simple, they live where they can afford to live. This is the majority. There will always be cheaters but for the most part they are a small percentage of the majority.
When we mention the word "Rent Stabilization" I don't think its fair to assume that if RS was to be abolished that rents everywhere in NY would spike up to Manhattan prices because Manhattan is totally on another level than the rest of the 5 boroughs.
People think that if RS were to be abolished, that the Bronx (cheapest rents in the NY) will have $5,000 apartments just like Manhattan does....that will never be the case.
You're right, Manhattan is in a class by itself and I am being too Manhattan-centric here. Rental buildings haven't been built in Manhattan since the seventies. I think it is similar at least in parts of other boroughs too. In marginal areas of Manhattan and other boroughs, perhaps market rents will go down because nobody would be interested in buying a condo or co-op there anyway and the economy isn't too good for large-scale gentrification right now, so there would end up being more rentals available. However, just don't expect it to happen in places like Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, Forest Hills (Gardens), etc. There I would expect any rentals to shoot up to market rate for the particular area (not shoot up to Manhattan market rate although some areas in the boroughs are getting close).
I understand economics very well. It was my major and I graduated with honors. What you are saying about rent regulation in other parts of the country is only partially true. The rents are in line with the salaries. Also it is cheaper to buy in most other places than to own. No study has to be funded with our tax money to see that if your household income is $50K a year that you cannot pay 2K a month. If you made a lot more than that you wouldn't need to pay another person to live in their rent stabilied apt, you could buy something of your own.
How about a law ending rent stabilized rents, and another stating that you cannot charge more than 1/3 the gross income of the household. So that people can pay their rents, still eat, get back and forth to work, and have some clothing on their backs.
People in other parts of the country can find rentals that are 1/3 or less of their gross income.
DAS:
1. You completely ignored my point and then went on to gibber about something else. I'll say it again:
Analyses and studies of the NY market by housing specialists (not landlords) have explained this. Briefly it goes like this:
Hundreds of thousands of regulated apartments are kept off the market by low-rent occupants who sit on them for many years and often decades. This occurs because of the artificially low rents. Thus the supply of apartments on the market is kept artificially low, causing market rents to be artificially high because of the demand:supply ratio. Deregulation would bring these apartments onto the market, increasing supply, and lowering market rents. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand this. When supply increases relative to demand, prices decrease. DAS, can you understand this?
NOW WHAT ABOUT THIS DO YOU DISAGREE WITH SPECIFICALLY AND WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION?
2. Then you go on to suggest that different prices be charged to different consumers for the same product based on the income of the consumer. Why just apartment rentals? Why not force supermarkets to price food according to the income of the individual customer? And the same for gasoline and heating oil? Etc., etc.
It's not even socialism. It's nonsense (especially from an "economics major who graduated with honors").
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.
