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 understand the need for rent stabilization, as prices in NYC are out of wack with reality (incomes). However, as with most well-intentioned legislation, there were unforseen consequences, it is oftentimes abused, and upon actual application becomes twisted and distorted by various selfish interests. Rent Stabilization is a prime culprit in the extremly low vacancy rates in NYC, and the subsequently grossly high rents. And as the property values and operating costs (heating, water, electric, maintenance, repairs, etc) rose, with little rent increase due to structure mandated increases regardless of reality, it became an undue burden on LLs, who oftentimes, cannot make ends meet. Buildings go into disrepair, Tenants complain, and the cycle never ends. Do I think rent stabilization is evil? No..it served its purpose. However, why do we have to continue with, what I believe to be, a failed system? Can we not put our heads together to create a better system? Or must we just stay with rent stabilization because? 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?
Sobro,
The way they were able to make the change in Mass. was to put the question of rent regs on the ballot as a referendum. This took it out of the hands of the politicians and into the hands of the people. More importantly, as a ballot item, it opened up the issue to public debate. In other words, the light of day was shed on the pros and cons. And the cons clearly won the vote.
I am almost certain that the same thing would happen in New York. Of course the low-rent lobby would be as loud and belligerent as ever in opposing a referendum and debate. I don't know the mechanics of accomplishing this (maybe signatures?). Anybody?
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").
When an apartment is rented, it is off the market, for however long it is rented, if that is 50 years, then that is what it is. Too bad if the real estate agent told you it would be easy to evict the tenants when you bought the building.
There are plenty of apts in NYC, they just may not be in your building. The supply is not low. They may be low in some areas, and they may be unaffordable, but they exist.
Yes deregulation would put more apts into the market. More people would be evicted or forced to move. Then instead of you taking responsibility for your bad investment, I the taxpayer, am forced to pay more out of my paycheck to take care of these homeless families. If they cannot pay you rent, they probably can't pay anyone else either. Most are already making to much to receive section 8. Most people renting in RS buildings are working people with decent incomes.
I have evidence when it comes to Boston. I have searched and found out that the landlords continue to raise the rent considerably on the tenants every time the leases run out. A $400 per month increase is not uncommon. Rents double when a vacancy occurs. Evictions and displacement are common. There is virtually no population growth in Boston, and property taxes are 1/3 more than NYC. Deregulation is forcing people out of the city of Boston, and the people leaving are not being replaced by wealthier people that can pay these rents. Soon you will see a negative population growth. Rents have not lowered at all since the deregulation. Not even with considering future cost expenses that would normally drive the prices. They are way out of line with normal inflation.
I was being sarcastic in suggesting that rent should be charged based on income. I am a normal American capitalist myself. I don't support socialism or communism. In being a normal American capitalist I don't want to be responsible for picking up the pieces of your bad investment decision. You should have done your homework before buying an RS building.
Tenants organizations are fighting hard in Boston for regulation to be reinstated.
For the future my suggestion would be to anyone don't move to NYC if you cannot pay the market rate rents. If you are already here and are facing the possibility of having to pay market rate rents, and you have no way of earning enough money to pay them, you should seriously consider leaving the city, and it's immediate area. If you are considering buying property here don't buy an RS building. The last piece of advice was given to me 10 years ago from a person that sold his last RS building in the early 70's. The information was out there.
We will not agree on this issue and it is ok. I am posting to show the other side. Some people may just read what you post, and not know what is really going on, like your example of Boston. RS may not be the way to go, but total deregulation will not benefit the tenants at all. You are looking out for your interest as a landlord, tenants should look out for theirs as well.
You finally clearly admit that deregulation would increase the supply of apartments on the market. And then you make no reference to the logical consequence that I sighted: that an increase in supply (and it would be in the hundreds of thousands) would lower rents for market rent tenants. So I'll accept the implication. It's as much as I can expect from you. Thank you.
Last edited by lamontnow; 02-01-2009 at 07:57 AM..
DAS says: "There are plenty of apts in NYC, they just may not be in your building. The supply is not low."
Oh, and by the way, that statement is probably the most unsupportable statement in this entire thread. The NYC vacancy rate is extremely low, according to the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development. If supply weren't low then market rent would not be high. Get it?
Last edited by lamontnow; 02-01-2009 at 08:48 AM..
DAS says "Yes deregulation would put more apts into the market. More people would be evicted or forced to move."
The sentence in bold is false. Deregulation is only upon vacancy. Current rent-stabilized tenants would be unaffected and would continue to renew their lease at will and at rents limited to the current RS guidelines. Rent stabilization needs to be phased out through a gradual process of deregulation, not suddenly abolished. In reading today's paper, it unfortunately looks like the Dems will use their now complete hold on the State govt to go the other way - they will essentially freeze any deregulation.
There are a few posters who, either through ignorance or for some other reason, post false or misleading info regarding the issue of rent reg.
Last edited by lamontnow; 02-02-2009 at 11:21 AM..
In essence forcing those landlords to then raise the rent on those whose apartments are not stabalized. Listen, I'm all for helping those in need out, but damn it, I'm in need too. Obviously, certain lifestyles can't afford every luxury therefore you have to find other means to provide. If I were on public assitance, PERHAPSI wouldn think that normal things like having your children play on a little league team are a luxury. I work hard and according to statistics, I am upper middle class - I can assure you that I am not and with the rents so incredibly overpriced, it makes hard to even save the money to get your own place, which is essentially unattainable as well. Middle class America is being killed! We pay for everything. If you make a dollar over what the state considers to be an appropriate income you are no longer qualified for any help. I know people who are in my position, but have 2 more children and are really stretching the dollar. So, if housing were fairly distributed, it would help everyone.
DAS says "Yes deregulation would put more apts into the market. More people would be evicted or forced to move."
The sentence in bold is false. Deregulation is only upon vacancy. Current rent-stabilized tenants would be unaffected and would continue to renew their lease at will and at rents limited to the current RS guidelines. Rent stabilization needs to be phased out through a gradual process of deregulation, not suddenly abolished. In reading today's paper, it unfortunately looks like the Dems will use their now complete hold on the State govt to go the other way - they will essentially freeze any deregulation.
There are a few posters who, either through ignorance or for some other reason, post false or misleading info regarding the issue of rent reg.
I don't think anyone is posting false information but information based on what they know or have learned. Everyone looks at rent stabilization in a different light....landlords see it one way, tenants see it another way and those that do not live in a rent stabilized apartment see it another way.
If rent stabilization ended with a vacancy rate of under 5% within the 5 boroughs, I think it would force out more lower income and middle income households. Others think that it would not raise rents dramatically. In Boston, after deregulation rents rose over 50% and it did force more and more lower income and middle class households to the fringes of the urban center. This may be fine with many people, but there are those that appreciate a mixture of various incomes within their neighborhood.
In the past, the outcry of rent stabilization was based on Manhattan under 96th Street because of the concentration of stabilized or rent controlled apartments that were in that area and because it was considered prime real estate. No one really cared about rent stabilization in the boroughs but now due to the increasing gentrification of neighborhoods outside of Manhattan it is becoming an issue for some.
You can find reports for and against rent stabilization in New York but for the health of the city, lower income and middle class households need to be here, at least in my opinion. Of course there are abuses in the system but those abuses are not as widespread as reported and they do come from both sides, tenants and landlords.
You also have landlords that have no problem with rent stabilization and what they collect from their buildings. They understand the system they brought into and they appreciate the tenants that they have. Others feel that due to the increase in real estate that they should make as big a profit as possible. Which one is correct, I don't know. All I can say is affordable rent has wider implications for a neighborhood and the city as a whole then just the collective pockets of tenants and landlords.
I guess my question is -- what's the point of your question?
The law is what the law is. If you think it's unfair, then I suggest you contact your legislature and work to get the law changed. I'm not sure why you keep harping on rent control/rent stabilization and how much you dislike it, since nothing you post here is going to change how things are.
Drkman please state your source that said "In Boston, after deregulation rents rose over 50% and it did force more and more lower income and middle class households to the fringes of the urban center." I thought it LOWERED rents across the board, and lower income people continued their exodus to the fringes, not increased it...they were already leaving, like they are in NYC.
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.
