This rent increase for rent-stabilized tenants is a joke

[cjma79]

Originally Posted by drkman

I think the Pinnacle Group? is or was one of the major players in the rent stabilized market in New York. If memory serves me correctly, they purchase the properties and then attempt to get the stabilized tenants out so that they can increase their profit margin.

Hopefully they buy all of them, then pay them off the apartments then all apartments would be free of this ridicules socialist law.

[drkman]

Originally Posted by bmwguydc

The inheritance provision is somewhat liberal, I agree, and it entitles the occupant to be able to pass title to a lease, in effect, which usurps the owner's rights entirely. That's a social program, not a responsible stabilization program that takes into account an owner's rights to their own property. All of this is fine, were the properties in question to have been funded/maintained with public monies, but using private capital for social programming with little input from the other side of the equation is wrong.

This is just general comment where only the first sentence has anything to do with BMW's quote:

I believe the apartment can only have one sucession from the original tenant and after that the landlord can charge the vacancy rate.

The vacancy rate is currently set at 17% for a one year and 20% for a two year. Technically, if the apartment is currently going for 950.00 then upon vacancy, the landllord can charge 1111.50 for a one year and 1140.00 for a two year. On top of that, if they make improvements to the property (let's say 6,000 worth) they can then add 1/40th of that amount onto the rent, so for a one year it would end up being an additional 150 bringing the total up to 1261.50 or 1290.00 for a two year. After about 3 years the capital improvement is paid for and the remaining years would an additional legal increase to the rent.

P.S. The use of 950.00 is due to an actual apartment rental in a stablized building in my area that I am aware of in which no improvements were made to the apartment (nice apartment though as I prefer the older looking apartments to the newer modern ones ) and is close to the median that the RGB stated in their report.

So let's say for my area in Crown Heights, with the average monthly rent for one bedroom going for 1200.00 (as per the median for unregulated apartments and an article in the New York Sun in September 2008), a landlord can conceivably bring an apartment to market rate or above market rate upon vacancy. This is not exactly uncommon as my landlord does this with all of his vacancies and will bring an apartment that had a long term tenant up or above market rate once they move out, in a blink.

Lastly, it depends on what kind of tax abatement or exemption a rent stabilized building has when it comes to the expiration of those benefits. For some buildings, once the abatement or exemption ends they can move out of the rent stabilzed market if they have followed the proper guidelines.

[mading6]

Originally Posted by lamontnow

I may have to sell my building. The rental market is terrible. And my expenses, especially the property tax, are skyrocketing.
This tiny increase on rents that are already 30, 40, or 50% below market is a joke. It's a small fraction of the increase in expenses, even according to the RGB. The whole system is political. Some of these low-rent tenants have an income higher than mine.
Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.

I totally agree with you. I have an 18 unit rent control building in los angeles CA and it is a joke. What about the relocation fee if I move in myself into my own building, it is over $18000.00 for someone who has resided in unit for over 3 years and is either elderly, disabled, or has a child.

The rules are ridiculous and we have no control over our own property. It is government owned and ruled and we pay all the bills. HOw is that legal????

Don't get me wrong I do not believe in raising rents ridiculously and do believe in tenant rights but I should be able to raise the rents to at least market value. Why is that some get fair market value for their units and I cannot?

[mading6]

Originally Posted by lamontnow

that's a good question and a good observation. My guess is that the building you lived in was mostly regulated.

You get what you pay for. That is because we live in a capitalistic economy (except for much of the ny housing industry). If you take away the profit incentive then why should an investor put more money into that business? If you pay a rent that doesn't even cover the cost of maintaining the apartment then you can't expect the owner to give you the same service received by a renter who pays a profit-generating rent.

It's not "greed". It's simple economics. And it's true of any industry.

yessssssssssssssssss!

[mading6]

Originally Posted by quelinda

Why must a private person subsidize other people's living expenses (their rent, water and heat)?

Good question!