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've stated before on previous threads that YOU have friends and family in rent stabilized building. And you probably at one point of your life lived and rented a rent stabilized apartment.
Therefore, ANYTHING that comes out of your mouth is going to be BIAS, pro-rent stabilization and anti-landlord. So your words mean absolutely nothing to me and other landlords on this forum as you are in the OUTSIDE looking IN and you have NO clue what you are talking about.Youdon't FULLY understand what landlords go through and how these stupid rent stabilization laws contribute to alot of the housing issues you complain about.
So your solution is SELL. What if I don't want to sell because I invested over 30 years of back breaking work and the money that would be offered for my building in this economy pales in comparison.
You even shot down my very reasonable idea and plan for the city raising taxes to provide the low income RS tenants with subsidises. Thats the fairest thing to do. Anything that will help the landlord you are against but anything to help your rent stabilized buddys and family you are for. Give me a break.
Nice assumptions. I own my own home and have never lived in a rent stabilized or controlled building. My family does not live, and has never lived in, any type of subsidized apartment - I never stated that in ANY posts. I have had acquaintances who had a stabilized apartment paying about 90% market rate. I have a good friend who owns a multi-unit building in Brooklyn, who is breaking even on his building, and living there free, and happy about that supplement to his income.
My point is - landholding is a business. You are not guaranteed money. If you're not making enough money, I suggest you find another line of work. You are not guaranteed money in real estate either. You take a calculated risk buying a building.
In the same vein, I could say that all of your posts are going to have a bias because you are a landlord.
Why do you even bother posting these questions to the forum if you are just going to get ridiculously angry if someone has a dissenting opinion? Do you just expect everyone to agree with you?
Mathjak said it correctly. Us landlords were conned, duped, made a victim of political lies promised to us landlords to get us on board.
At one point early in the creation of Rent Stabilization, rent increase DID in fact keep pace with the rise of expense. Everything was all good...no complaints.
As years and decades progressed, rent increases were made smaller and smaller will expense increases kept rising at a steady pace.
Eventually it snow balled into what we have today. Hardship for landlords.
The other side will say that the rents increased but the salaries to pay them weren't in step. I don't know what studies say about Rent v. Expenses v. Salaries over the last 60 years. Any stats would be helpful and results would be very interesting.
But no matter what the landlord's post you are not paying more because someone else pays less.
DAS,
That statement indicates that you totally do not understand the economics of rent regulation and it's harmful effects on market-rent tenants. 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?
This is why rent regulation has been phased out or abolished almost everywhere in the US. As a result, market rents declined in these areas, as expected.
You even shot down my very reasonable idea and plan for the city raising taxes to provide the low income RS tenants with subsidises. Thats the fairest thing to do. Anything that will help the landlord you are against but anything to help your rent stabilized buddys and family you are for. Give me a break.
Fair proposal. I have a question. Do any of your landlord collegues allow section 8? If yes, have they ever complained about the bureaucracy/paperwork surrounding those vouchers/subsidies?
Therefore, ANYTHING that comes out of your mouth is going to be BIAS, pro-rent stabilization and anti-landlord. So your words mean absolutely nothing to me and other landlords on this forum as you are in the OUTSIDE looking IN and you have NO clue what you are talking about.
... you happen to be accusing the wrong person on here as being a beneficiary and/or supporter of rent stabilization. Mathjak107 is actually a beneficiary, as he said in http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-y...e#post6426594:
you cant blame the tenents for living in a rent stabilized apartment they just lucked out because of the length of time time in the apartment,,,
in our case my wife has been living in our current apartment for over 25 years. she looooves it here in bayside. when we got married a few years ago i sold my home and moved to her apartment,,, we never felt it was worth buying a co-op or condo as the economics of it made no sense. instead we bought a home in the poconos where we hope to retire in a few years..... so our situation is really unique... we live in a rent stabilized apartment,,,, our family business owns rent stabilized apartments in manhattan with tenants and we own a home in pa which is where we will eventually retire to. talk about getting a taste of all sides.......
I wonder how they keep the City thinking they are making less than the income required for destabilization in order to keep this apartment. Although perhaps they don't have to if the rent has not gone up to $2K yet.
I also think it is ridiculous that the laws allow PEOPLE WHO BUY THEIR OWN REAL ESTATE to continue to claim a rent-stabilized apartment as their "primary residence." What you own should be your "primary residence."
PS: I am not condemning mathjak107, as he is only doing what the law allows him to.
DAS,
That statement indicates that you totally do not understand the economics of rent regulation and it's harmful effects on market-rent tenants. 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?
This is why rent regulation has been phased out or abolished almost everywhere in the US. As a result, market rents declined in these areas, as expected.
I cannot be convinced that if it were all abolished tomorrow rents would go down, especially in Manhattan. I think the rents of any newly available apartments (THAT WERE NOT CONVERTED TO CO-OP OR CONDO UPON THE ABOLISHMENT OF RENT CONTROL AND STABILIZATION) would go sky-high to match market rents.
There's always a lot of contention and rhetoric regarding this issue as evident by the annual raucous event in June.
I guess that it's to be expected when one is dealing with issues of finance, livelihood, profits, making ends meet as a tenant or as a a landlord.
There will always be a few culprits on both sides who abuse a system that was designed to do good. There will be a few stabilized tenants with lofty salaries and assets, riding high, frolicking in the sand and beach at their other villas; there'll be landlords never satisfied with the rent they are getting if they can eke out one more penny from another potential tenant instead of collecting rent from the old granny living off of her tiny social security check and struggling to buy food and medicine.
When the smoke clears and the dust settles, one finds that sometimes there really are struggling landlords; and yes, sometimes there really are people who are unable to move elsewhere not only in the city but in any corner of the planet, save maybe Tibet.
In light of all this drama, I would seriously consider a Better Bronx's proposal above as a way for us to address this contentious issue that puts so much at stake for both sides.
Ok Miles but another issue has to be addressed. Section 8 income guidelines are much too low for most people that live in rent stabilized apts. Would taxpayers be willing to subsidize their rents when most rent stabilized tenants make a decent wage? Most are not poor, just not wealthy enough to pay market rate rents.
I also think that NY is a huge state. Some businesses should be offered incentives to move to Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and other towns with lower cost of living. Some industries should be shifted to these areas. There is no reason for an industry which pays a majority of its workers, the median household income for NYC, or less, to stay in the city. People may be willing to move to other areas of the state if there were jobs.
City resources are also stretched to the limit, schools, hospitals etc. These institutions are underutilized upstate. There is plenty good reasonably priced housing stock for the average worker, if there were jobs.
Yes Chelsa1075 they are not the same. I think that $1900 a month for a family or group of people living together making around the median household income for NYC is insane as well.
But no matter what the landlord's post you are not paying more because someone else pays less.
I don't know why I'm posting this because I know what is coming behind it.
But here goes. From here on I'm referring only to rent stabilized apts unless I state otherwise. Landlords can only go up a certain percentage when the lease ends. They can go up a higher percentage if someone vacates the apt and an even higher percentage if they complete certain renovations when someone vacates. Once the rent gets to $2K they can charge market rate rent what ever and how ever much that is.
The only reason that one person is paying a lower amount than another is that they were there longer.
Only if you are receiving section 8 subsidy will your income be considered in the amount of rent you pay. The landlord only cares about your income in that you can pay what they are charging.
It doesn't matter what anyone else is paying as long as the building is stabilized the landlord cannot go over the percentages.
When the landlord can charge market rates they probably will consider what they need to compensate for the stabilized rents. However I doubt very much that they would lower the rents if everyone were paying more.
Of course they use this to try to build resentment between the tenants and make it uncomfortable for the stabilized and controlled tenants. It usually doesn't work, because people really can't pay more for the most part and they will find ways to deal with it. Sometimes making the market rate tenants more uncomfortable than they were trying to make them. But even that is good for the landlord because when that market rate tenant moves out they'll just charge more.
Das...some of the information you are giving out is wrong.
Let me break it down for everyone:
What is the definition of MARKET rent?
What is the definition of SUPPLY & DEMAND?
These terms are the blueprint to ANY business. You must first need to understand the definiton of these terms to understand the logic behind why things happen.
Due to rent stabilization, there is a shortage of affordable housing. That is a well know fact.
A huge demand for housing in a stock that is not very big inflates rent prices. The demand is larger than the supply.
Also, RS tenants paying way below market rent makes both NEW rent stabilized tenants and market rent tenants pay alittle more in their rent to compensate for the loses the landlord takes on those cheap rents he gets from those old RS tenants.
Market rent doesn't have to be 2K or more. That is a myth.
Market rent can still exist while under the rent stabilized law depending on the area you live in.
You can have a legal rent on 1 bedroom rent stabilized apartment for $1,800 in the Bronx however, that doesn't mean that the landlord is going to charge $1,800 just because the legal rent is that. If he did, that apartment would stay vacant forever because no one in the Bronx can afford that.
Therefore, the landlord will charge a preferrential rent between lets say $1000-$1200 for the apartment because thats ALL the market can bare in his neighborhood or borough.
Legally the landlord can charge ANYWHERE up to $1800.
Now you may ask..."How do NEW rent stabilized tenants pay more for others that pay cheap?"
Well...instead of the landlord charging $1200 for the apartment, he will tack on an extra $50-$75 to the rent to help offset his loses from cheaper paying apartments. So the rent is now $1275 instead of $1200. And this is all legal and rightfully so.
All thanks to the wonderful rent stabilization law. How sweet.
PEOPLE need to know that the ONLY people that benefit from RENT STABILIZATION are OLDER tenants that have been living in their apartments 15+ years.
Rent Stabilization does not exist in new tenants anymore. Landlords have smarten up and done massive renovations to their apartments to charge fair market rents in their area. Little by little the RS housing stock is deminishing because all bad ideas evenually kills itself off.
Last edited by A_Better_Bronx_2morrow; 01-30-2009 at 02:20 PM..
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.
End the ignorance
