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.
You have a husband and wife with one 23 year old son living in a 3 bedroom, rent stabilized apartment for $500 a month. The market rent for a 3 bedroom apartment in their area is $1,900 a month.
The husband and wife decide to move because they brought a new condo. Since the son is old enough to be on his own, they decide to leave him the apartment so he can take full advantage of the reccession law which gives the son the ability to continue paying the CHEAP rent of $500 a month.
So now you have a single guy occupying a 3 bedroom apartment for $500 a month. And people wonder why there's an affordable housing shortage.
Does anyone agree or disagree with this?
In this day and age of high operating expenses such as fuel, property taxes, insurance, water & sewage, maintanance and repair and mortgage payments. Does anyone feel its JUST to allow such an unfair law to exist that puts a financial burden on landlords?
Before answering, consider yourself a property owner that collects rent to pay expenses. How would you feel about the situation above? Do you feel as if you are getting robbed and ripped off by allow such a thing to happen?
If I was the landlord, I would move the son to a single-bedroom or to a studio and let a larger family head to the 3-bedroom. As for the rent, the son's rent can remain unless the move is done.
$500!!! Where is this apt? This is going to be good thread. I have to think about it. It is one thing if the son was not living there before and then came and took over the apt. It is another thing if the son has lived there continuously for most of his life. Should he pay more within a certain percentage, if he has been there so long, like what a new tenant in the rent stabilized apt would pay?
$500!!! Where is this apt? This is going to be good thread. I have to think about it. It is one thing if the son was not living there before and then came and took over the apt. It is another thing if the son has lived there continuously for most of his life. Should he pay more within a certain percentage, if he has been there so long, like what a new tenant in the rent stabilized apt would pay?
I think paying a little bit more, to about $550-675 would be decent for the guy.
If I was the landlord, I would move the son to a single-bedroom or to a studio and let a larger family head to the 3-bedroom. As for the rent, the son's rent can remain unless the move is done.
If I was the landlord, I would move the son to a single-bedroom or to a studio and let a larger family head to the 3-bedroom. As for the rent, the son's rent can remain unless the move is done.
A landlord can offer him a 1 bedroom for the same price HOWEVER, the son doesn't need to take it and the law will back him up on that. This is what I don't get. How do laws like these get passed?
I think the rent stabilization law was stupid when it was enacted.
I also think it would be equally stupid to suddenly change the rules on everybody in a rent stabilized apartment.
Basically, rent stabilization was dumb, the law shouldn't be extended, but we shouldn't change the law to screw over a bunch of people.
I've said it once in a different thread and I'll say it again...POLICTIANS SHOULD REALLY LISTEN TO THIS ADVISE. IT'S A WIN-WIN for ALL.
Rent stabilization CAN be abolished IF the City decides to do the RIGHT AND FAIR thing and subsidize all Rent Stabilization tenants that truely need it. You do income verifications on ever Rent Stabilized tenant and determine from there if the City will subsidize 70%, 50%, 25% of the tenant's rent. Very simular to SECTION 8.
Now, you may say..."where is all this money supoose to come from?" EASY...tax payers! All tax payers should EQUALLY chip in to help out the poor who can't afford their apartment. Just like we ALL chip in to pay for WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, SECTION 8, MEDICAID, why should rent stablized tenants who really need it be any different than the programs I already mentioned?
If the City needs to raise the taxes 1% or 2% to make this program a reality, then so be it. It's all in the GREATER good of the City and the people that really need the help.
This is not the law any longer, only for families that were Grandfathered in under the old laws, you can no longer pass apartments on to children under rent control, unless it was an apartment rented during the time those laws were in effect.
This is not the law any longer, only for families that were Grandfathered in under the old laws, you can no longer pass apartments on to children under rent control, unless it was an apartment rented during the time those laws were in effect.
This law still exist. Trust me I know. This applies to both rent control and rent stabilized tenants. Please show me proof that this law no longer exist because I can sure provide proof that it STILL exist.
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.
