Rent Stabilization Succession Rights...Is It REALLY Fair??? (co-op, how much)

[DAS]

Sobroguy, just search under Boston and rent regulation. I read the same, there is a lot out there on the subject.

[drkman]

Originally Posted by SobroGuy

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.

From 2007

The Cambridge Model | The New York Observer

From 1997 about 2 years after the time when deregulation occurred.

ROCKETING RENTS BEAN BOSTONIANS

A detailed report from a Housing 97 conference that examined deregulation in Massachusetts and California

http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/...rts/dreier.pdf

As DAS stated, there is a ton of information out there about the effects of deregulation in the Boston area (pro and con). From what I have read, one of the mayors of Boston (don't know if it is the current one) was looking for ways to have some form of regulation started up again since the displacement has not been healthy, in his opinion, for the area.

One of the things that was interesting in the housing report is a section that stated that developers were not interested in building apartments unless they were able to get approx 2,000 per month in rent for the apartments because it would not be profitable for new construction (page 44). That was over 10 years ago but with the housing boom that occurred, I would think that that figure would have increased.

[lamontnow]

The Dems are riding high. Note the part about ensuring that wealthy tenants with incomes up to $240K will keep their low rents! (And some above $240K). The current limit of 175K is too low for the lobby.
And that's just part of it. There's a lot more in this legislation that's not mentioned in the article. These bills will turn the clock back on NY rent regulation to the 80's, but even worse.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...,6158196.story

Why should we let the government use its power to control markets for the sake of the wealthy???

[SeventhFloor]

my apt is not rent stabilized

[lamontnow]

Here's what a blogger, who was a tenant, says in response to a Democratic politician who calls the sweeping changes toward stricter rent controls "fair":

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/barry_popik..._new_york.html

[A_Better_Bronx_2morrow]

The problem that landlords have is NOT with the RS tenants but with the whole Rent Stabilization SYSTEM that allows rich or poor tenants to pay rents that are NO where close to what they should be compared to their operating expenses. The math doesn't add up and that's where the BEEF stems from.

The fact that there is NO expense CONTROL for landlords BUT there's income control, is quite unfair to say the least.

How would anyone feel if your boss tells you that you and 5 other employees in your company out of 25 employees have to get a $500 pay cut to help out the low level employees in your company that are having a hard time paying their bills?

How would you feel? And be honest

You wouldn't be too happy, would you?

Wouldn't you feel like you've been singled out?

Wouldn't you feel like its unfair that you and 5 other employees had to suffer by taking a pay cut while the OTHER 20 employees DON"T get any pay cuts?

Wouldn't you feel like the fair thing to have done was to have ALL 25 employees take a small pay cut so that NOT 1 indivdual feels the finiancial pinch more than the other?

That's is EXACTLY how landlords feel and are currently going through. It's not the tenants fault but the RS system that FORCES landlords to take a pay cut (a.k.a. Subsidizing a tenant) while at the same time having their expenses to keep the business afloat at the standard MARKET RATES. How does that make any sense to anyone?

All this does is create a financial burdens on landlords and a financial hardship that AIDS and CONTRIBUTES to neglected buildings as landlords have to CUT back on services which ultimately negatively effects the community in the long run by decreasing property value and creating a new wave of slums to be born in a once nice neighborhood.

Which brings up a good point I mentioned before:

PUBLIC money should be used to SOLVE a PUBLIC problem (affordable housing)

However,

PRIVATE money (landlord's own money) is being used to SOLVE a PUBLIC problem.

How can anyone possibly agree with this concept? Yet, this is EXACTLY how the RENT STABILIZATION LAWS ARE AND WORKS.

It shouldn't be LANDLORDS vs. TENANTS. It should be LANDLORDS & TENANTS vs. THE RS SYSTEM. Landlords and Tenants need to gang up on politicians to FORCE change in the RS system that benefits both parties equally.

Tenants instead of blaming and bad mouthing landlords for wanting to raise rents, should first understand WHY landlords need to raise rents AND fully understand how the Rent Stabilization law works against landlords as stated above. Once this is understood from tenants, then and only then will there be REFORM to the RS system that is fair to BOTH landlords and tenants so we can all live happily ever after.

[SeventhFloor]

the problem is i think there is no way to reform the system. with the argument you presented, the only way to resolve the situation would be to abolish it completely.

so let's say this happens, and every apartment raises up to market rate.

what's the market rate for a 2 bdrm in your building? the reality is i dont think a lot of people will be able to afford it. so the next step is look for affordable housing from the city or NYCHA. the affordble housing works on a lottery basis, so even if you have good credit and make the income requirement, thats not a guarantee. now here's NYCHA: you already have to wait a few years to get in an apartment depending on the variables. so imagine if all the apartments suddenly went market rate, it would be a crisis. a huge displacement like that cant go smoothly in one day.

and you might be a good landlord, but others arent, and might raise the rent to ridiculous levels. the landlords have to be monitored in order to make sure this doesnt happen. its already out of control in manhattan now, its a playground for the rich.

if rent stabilization was abolished, what effect would this have on the housing market as well? rent has historically been cheaper than owning a home. maybe more people will decide to buy than rent. then the landlord will still not get his money because he has vacancies.

everybody says well if you cant afford new york, leave. well i dont think a supermarket cashier is going to spend half of his/her weekly paycheck to commute into the city. or live in a potentially illegal basement apartment closer to their job.

[lamontnow]

Seventh, I respectfully but sharply disagree with you when you say "the problem is i think there is no way to reform the system. with the argument you presented, the only way to resolve the situation would be to abolish it completely."

We have the solution. A very slow version of it (much too slow) is currently in place. It's called deregulation upon vacancy (and only if certain conditions are met). Current rent-stabilized tenants are unaffected and 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. The system was reformed somewhat by the state legislature in 1997 and that reform has been effecting the system slowly, but positively, since then.

Unfortunately for the city, the Dems who now totally rule Albany, and are under enormous political pressure from a very activist lobby, are now in the process of effectively putting an end to any deregulation. We're going backwards.

[samyn on the green]

If you are not a looter, moocher or parasite this government is not going to help you. This is a bullish time for the parasites of the world.

As a landlord your reward for hard work is higher property taxes. While they are forcibly looting you from the tax end they swing around to the other side and annex your freedom as a landlord to charge market rates. So then they enable the moochers to use your property for less than the value. Then to top it all off they take your tax money and forward it to a slew of parasites clamoring for bailouts. While all of this is happening the hard workers with no access to this sweetheart government rent controlled units have to pay above market rate to make up for the moochers who pay $950 for a $2500 apartment.

This system stifles everyone's spirit and few feel motivated to use their full creative passion to make something in this world. When looters, moochers and parasites are continually rewarded the hard workers and passionate creative juggernauts withdraw and society decays.

[newtoli]

Originally Posted by SobroGuy

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.

The Boston Area Adjusts to Rent Deregulation - New York Times

FIVE years after Massachusetts voters ended rent regulation or, more precisely, ended it in Boston, Brookline and Cambridge, the three cities that still had some form of rent control -- rents have taken sizable jumps, the cities are spiffier and less pockmarked by deteriorating neighborhoods and many poorer people have been forced to move to communities farther from the urban core.

While no overall study of the effects of the end of controls on rents has been made, a survey by a leading landlord in Cambridge found that rents for his company's formerly controlled apartments have doubled.