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.
Newtoli, I am not screaming or even whispering. I just wrote what I know and I know my experience is not unusual. I can't change the system and wouldn't even try. It is too entrenched in NYC. There is much inequity here. Many people use the system, both poor and rich.
The system is rife with corruption from top to bottom. look at the noted state representative Rangel, he profits from FOUR rent control units and rents them out for market rate while not reporting the income. If he is working the system like this you can only imagine how creative people can get when they fly under the radar.
Working class people not involved in this scam have to pay 40-50% of their income to live a a inflated price market value apt while insiders work the system and bank the loot saved from the corruption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoli
Then report him. If he makes more than $175k a year, he can't benefit from stabilization.
Thank you Miles that was a great post and I think now we can focus on one issue in rent stabilization, which would be the amount of income that a person can earn and still qualify. I would agree with this. There are a few of these people out there.
I have one problem with this however. The landlord's on this thread are really not complaining about people making over $175K, because in the areas where they own the buildings, very few households, if any at all, make that amount. If you search the zip codes that these buildings are in most of the time the average household income is below the $53K of Manhattan. So while it would weed out a few, it won't really change things much. I am not opposed to this. I think it is a good thing to do. I am just pointing out that it won't make much of a difference. It is however a good start.
lamonttown also changed his/her opinion on abolishing RS altogether, to abolishing upon vacancy. Yet complains about not enough vacancies. If abolishing RS upon vacancy were to go into effect, there would be much less vacancies. The reason that any occur at all, is most of the time is because the tenant is priced out of one area, and able to find another RS in another area. Most RS tenants make too much money to qualify for section 8 or other subsidy.
I would not be opposed to some type of tax abatement for landlords that are losing money, or that only make enough to keep the building going, or make a very small profit. A better bronx 2 morrow probably wouldn't qualify as he and wife make enough to pay themselves a combined income of 100K. Most people that are landlords make much less if anything, and hope that they make enough to get an apt out of the deal. Most know that they have to work a seperate job in addition, and so does their spouse.
The issue about 175,000 is that it is not an individual's income, it is household income so if you have 3 people living in a unit and all 3 are making 60k per year then they would surpass the threshold. There is no guarantee that those 3 people will live in the same household forever. One could be a child that graduated college and will only be living at home for a couple of years. Once they leave then the household income decreases by a third.
The same issue is what if someone gets a divorce or their spouse passes away. The household income would decrease so if these apartments were deregulated then the remaining spouse might be forced to leave that particular apartment.
Also, if someone owns a rent stabilzed building and they are not maknig enough of a profit (as deemed by the RGB) they can apply for a hardship increase on their units thereby making them more profitable.
The way I see it is a rent stabilized building is an investment. You are going to make a certain amount of profit on it but the profit potential is not unlimited. It is regulated by the government to a degree. If you have tenants that are undersirable and destroying your property you can legally have them evicted. It is not a gold mine but provides a steady income. If you desire more of an income it is not the business to be in or you need to supplement it with ownership of property that is not rent stabilized. I see people buying up various three family homes so that they can have them as rental property and those are not regulated thereby it increases their profit potential. Everything is give and take and while I can understand some landlords frustration with rent stabilzation it is still possible to make a very decent living wage from owning a building and once profits begin to decline there are remedies in place to increase the rents to a degree.
As far as doctors, politicians and rich people having a rent stabilized apartment, I doubt that many of them would want to live in the majority of the areas that these buildings reside in. Most of them want to be in Manhattan below 96th Street and it is in those areas where you see the kind of abuses that have been described by some on this thread. I seriously doubt that a doctor making 500k or more would want to live in Brownsville just because the apartment is rent stabilized.
I agree that the system needs to be changed but my major concern about the elimination of rent regulations isn't the rent when you sign the lease-- since you know going in what it's going to cost you-- it's the lack of protection from outrageous increases that the tenant will face at any given time.
What if the going rate for a 1 bedroom in a particular area is $1200 a month. Then the newest yuppie store of choice opens in the area and a LL finds out that the building next door just rented apartments to two yuppie couples for $1700 each. Does he raise the rents of his working class tenants that amount because hey, if someone else is willing to pay it then all apartments in that area must be worth that as well?
There is no protection from price gouging if there are no regulations in place and just as there are abusers of the RS system (doctors paying $500 for an apartment) there will be plenty of abuse from landlords who bleed the tenant for every nickel they can get for no other reason then because they can.
nygeek, you say that rent reg is needed to protect a tenant from a large increase in case the neighborhood goes yuppie. What about protection for a LL from the government suddenly making sweeping and oppressive changes to the rent reg laws??
For example, I bought my building seven years ago, fully understanding the laws and what I was up against. But now the new state legislature is turning everything upside down. They're putting the screws to LL's big time. Over the next five to ten years my current small but reasonable profit will dwindle and turn into a loss. If a tenant should be protected from unexpected change, why shouldn't a LL?
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, or something like that. But seriously, what the politicians are doing now is shameful (including giving tenants making $240,000 the RS umbrella). It's pure political pandering at it's worst.
I agree that the system needs to be changed but my major concern about the elimination of rent regulations isn't the rent when you sign the lease-- since you know going in what it's going to cost you-- it's the lack of protection from outrageous increases that the tenant will face at any given time.
What if the going rate for a 1 bedroom in a particular area is $1200 a month. Then the newest yuppie store of choice opens in the area and a LL finds out that the building next door just rented apartments to two yuppie couples for $1700 each. Does he raise the rents of his working class tenants that amount because hey, if someone else is willing to pay it then all apartments in that area must be worth that as well?
There is no protection from price gouging if there are no regulations in place and just as there are abusers of the RS system (doctors paying $500 for an apartment) there will be plenty of abuse from landlords who bleed the tenant for every nickel they can get for no other reason then because they can.
The landlord can't raise the rent whenever he feels like it, if they are still under the lease. After the lease expires, I don't feel that its unreasonable for the tenant to have to pay the new market rent or find a less expensive housing option.
The issue about 175,000 is that it is not an individual's income, it is household income so if you have 3 people living in a unit and all 3 are making 60k per year then they would surpass the threshold. There is no guarantee that those 3 people will live in the same household forever. One could be a child that graduated college and will only be living at home for a couple of years. Once they leave then the household income decreases by a third.
The same issue is what if someone gets a divorce or their spouse passes away. The household income would decrease so if these apartments were deregulated then the remaining spouse might be forced to leave that particular apartment.
drkman since you are replying to my post and we seem to see this issue the same way, I just want to point out that I tried to carefully state household income in my post. I am glad that you defined exactly what I am referring to.
I don't think that a person or household that makes more than the 175K should rent the RS apt in the first place. I don't think that the apt should become deregulated because the household becomes "wealthier". The apt should remain RS and the "wealthy" tenants should move out, allowing someone else that needs an RS apt, to rent it at the increased RS rate allowed for the vacancy.
In the case of the child growing up and receiving an income this should not count because the child is not on the lease usually the apt is rented to the parents. Children grow up, and come and go, until they get their bearings in the world and become completely independent.
In the case that the parents move out, pass away, the lease should end with child being able to remain and pay the new RS vacancy rate. If the child makes more than the $175K they should move out, and allow another person that makes less and needs an RS apt to rent it at that rate allowed for a vacancy.
As far as married couples they should not be allowed to stay in the apt if their wealth increases more than $175K. There are risk involved in marriage that should be covered in prenuptual agreements, and insurance policies in case of death. It is not fair for a landlord to have to consider all of these possibilities.
gradstudent77 says
Quote:
The landlord can't raise the rent whenever he feels like it, if they are still under the lease. After the lease expires, I don't feel that its unreasonable for the tenant to have to pay the new market rent or find a less expensive housing option.
This would abolish RS and where would these tenants live? They are living in affordable areas of the city. If this were to happen there would be no where for them to go. I don't think that you are fully considering the consequences if this type of action were to take place. Crime is low in NYC, and one of the reasons is subsidized housing, RS, and a shelter system that rents apts for families to stay in until they can find subsidized housing. Our taxes pay for this system. Do you think that people will be able to quietly pack up and leave?
DAS, I believe you have stated that you support rent controls as a means of providing affordable apartments to working class people. Yet you see no contradiction with providing these apartments to people with incomes as high as $175K, soon to become $240K. Whether it's individual or household income, these figures are way above a working class income.
I just don't see why some, not all, rent reg supporters want our government to continue to support such upper income people.
DAS, I believe you have stated that you support rent controls as a means of providing affordable apartments to working class people. Yet you see no contradiction with providing these apartments to people with incomes as high as $175K, soon to become $240K. Whether it's individual or household income, these figures are way above a working class income.
I just don't see why some, not all, rent reg supporters want our government to continue to support such upper income people.
Can you read well? First of all we are talking about rent stabilization (RS) not rent control. I have recently posted 2 post that state I am against someone or household making that much money and being allowed to rent an RS apt.
Stop trying to rewrite my post.
drkman since you are replying to my post and we seem to see this issue the same way, I just want to point out that I tried to carefully state household income in my post. I am glad that you defined exactly what I am referring to.
I don't think that a person or household that makes more than the 175K should rent the RS apt in the first place. I don't think that the apt should become deregulated because the household becomes "wealthier". The apt should remain RS and the "wealthy" tenants should move out, allowing someone else that needs an RS apt, to rent it at the increased RS rate allowed for the vacancy.
In the case of the child growing up and receiving an income this should not count because the child is not on the lease usually the apt is rented to the parents. Children grow up, and come and go, until they get their bearings in the world and become completely independent.
In the case that the parents move out, pass away, the lease should end with child being able to remain and pay the new RS vacancy rate. If the child makes more than the $175K they should move out, and allow another person that makes less and needs an RS apt to rent it at that rate allowed for a vacancy.
As far as married couples they should not be allowed to stay in the apt if their wealth increases more than $175K. There are risk involved in marriage that should be covered in prenuptual agreements, and insurance policies in case of death. It is not fair for a landlord to have to consider all of these possibilities.
gradstudent77 says
This would abolish RS and where would these tenants live? They are living in affordable areas of the city. If this were to happen there would be no where for them to go. I don't think that you are fully considering the consequences if this type of action were to take place. Crime is low in NYC, and one of the reasons is subsidized housing, RS, and a shelter system that rents apts for families to stay in until they can find subsidized housing. Our taxes pay for this system. Do you think that people will be able to quietly pack up and leave?
There are 3 things essential for the survival of Human Beings. They are: Food, Healthcare and Housing. That we ALL agree.
1. So answer me this...do you see supermarket and grocery store owners complain about poor people paying half the retail price for food? The answer is NO because all poor people that can't afford food, the city helps out by providing food stamps. At the end of the day the supermarket makes the SAME profit selling their food to either a regular person or a poor person because BOTH pay MARKET pricees for their food. Their bottomline DOESN'T change and business continues.
2. Do you see Hospitals complain about poor people paying half price for medical attention which cause them to lose profit? The answer is NO because poor people who can't afford helathcare, the city helps out by providing Medicaid. At the end of the day, the Hospital makes the same profit providing healthcare to a regular or poor person. Their bottomline DOESN'T change and business continues.
3. Do you see Landlords complaining about rich or poor people paying half price for rent? The answer is YES. Does the city provide subsides to poor people? Yes but only to a hand full in the means of section 8. So what about the other people that don't qualify for section 8, what happens to them? Well, certainly the city doesn't want to help out so landlords have to tough it out and subsidize them and the city makes sure that the landlords subsidies them by creating strict laws. So landlords take a lost in profit to help out the poor and in some cases, the rich. Is the bottomline for landlords effected by sudsidizing tenants? ABSOLUTELY! So is it fair to assume that if landlord's bottomline are affected, he would have NO CHOICE but to cut back on services such as maintanance and repairs? Correct. And this is why many RS buildings look the way they do. And this is how slums are created. Hmmmmm.
Ok people...the point is treat everyone fairly. Don't single out landlords and have them subsidize tenants while every other essential industry for human survival is NOT forced to subsidize their costumers.
Why is that so HARD to understand? I don't get it.
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.
Rangel is your leader
