This rent increase for rent-stabilized tenants is a joke (New York: renters, find a job)

[mark2kay]

well thats why the circle goes on and on. they give you low rent, so you treat them cheaply, when u treat them like second classs citizens they treat it back to you, not paying rents becaus ethey know how hard it is to be evicted. its a circle, govt gave u the shaft, u gave it to them , they gave it back to you.if stuffs always broke in ur apt why would u want to pay rent on time.

[mark2kay]

i think your missing the point here. why dont you just try treating them equally (yes... i know they dont pay equally) and it would come back to you. like a poster above my gf's parents have a rc apt in sunnyside queens(550), there downright scared to ask ll to fix anything fearing theyll be kicked out and so either nothing get fixed or they fix it themselves(side note they pay all their rent on time). im just saying if u try and make their life harder theyll make yours. you can be cheap on repairs but they can still stay there long as they want and you still have an rc apt for a long time. or you can have a nice relationship with and have a rc apt.

most nyc with rc apt dont want to give it up, you might get lucky with non payers, but even evicting those can be difficult.

[lamontnow]

The exchange between Robby and the other posters sums things up. Rent regulation is a lose-lose proposition for both owners and tenants, and the city as a whole. There is an enormous cost to taxpayers who have to support the various state and city bureaucracies and the legal system that oversee rent reg, the vacancy rate stays low because of all the people who sit on their apartments for decades (which keeps market rents high), and the quality of much the housing stock is poor because the profit motive has been stifled.

So the why is the system still here after 60+ years? The state legislators come up for reelection every two years. Who are they afraid of offending by opposing rent reg? It's not the majority of their constituents. It's a very well-organized, loud minority of activists who vote based only on this one issue. If the majority were made aware of how rent reg negatively effects them, as I described in the first paragraph and in the cited sources earlier in this thread, those politicians would do a complete and rapid about face.
And everybody would be the winners. The system could be phased out gradually. Let's talk solutions.

[gradstudent77]

Originally Posted by Woozle

Shoulda sold a year ago. Rants don't work with a socialistic government. They steal from you, you do your best to steal from them. That's how the Soviet Union worked. That's how New York City works for anyone with half a functioning brain. You keep stealing from each other and whoever goes bankrupt first loses. Regardless of who loses, the city (or the country, as in the case of the good ole USSR) will be in ruins. That's socialism.

true

[gradstudent77]

Originally Posted by Ninjahedge

There was a case in Hoboken where the building was bought by a real estate company/conglom/entrepenurial individual that wanted to raise rents to outrageous levels ($1500 for a 1br 1bath 4th floor walkup).

Let me describe the place.

The stairs had to be propped up with metal posts because they were tilting too much.

The front foor is falling off and the stairway is crumbling.

The roof leaks and people have had to bother the landlord to get it repaired and repainted.

The chimneys (this is a pre-war brownstone) are all tilting a good 5-10 degrees and are unreinforced masonry. Only time will tell when they fall over.

That said, the rent he was ALLOWED to charge was only about $650. He is now pissed and SUING THE CITY because they got their rent checked and he was forced to lower it AND refund the difference for XX months overcharges.

Now, I would have sympathy for the guy if he was fixing the place up and was a generally nice guy, but a place that had on almost all occasions, problem with its backflow on sewerage (and broken pipes) flooding the basement with himan doo-doo (the neighbors did not have this problem, so it wasn't a city backflow, per se). I have no sympathy for him.


The problem seems to be, it is only the scumbags on both sides that lack the concience and THAT allows them to take advantage of the system, either way. The ones that get light-bulbed are usually the nice guys.

So what is life's lesson? Well besides not making lemonade every time someone hands you something, it is to expect the worst and prepare for it and HOPEFULLY you will never need to because you struck the nice-guy lottery and got paired with another nice guy.

Reality? Take what you can or someone else will. Not what I am willing to live my life by, but how can you be a whining online martyr without having poop dumped on you all the time?

The reason anyone could get away with charging something liek $1500 for such an awful place is because in this metro we have rent control and strictly restrict development, in the face of a massive wave of immigration.

[mark2kay]

im actually not against doing away in rent control/stabilization, as it would be better in the long run, but its would be a rocky road to the goal for every1 but ll's. prices would go up, then development then down back again, but it wont be quick it could take years. sorta like comparing it turning neighborhoods like mott haven/harlem into hot spots.im not so sure how much cheaper it would be as it would have to go up then come back down. at the very least in my unprofessional opinion it would stop prices from steadily rising evey year. i envision something around 100-300 less than now but years from now and less steady increases.

in summation, it will be hard for many and will displace many, but after normalization, people will move back into the city, just more of middle class, the lower class will be pushed out besides projects. then immigrants wont be living in the city but outside the limits in jersey etc.

[gradstudent77]

Originally Posted by mark2kay

im actually not against doing away in rent control/stabilization, as it would be better in the long run, but its would be a rocky road to the goal for every1 but ll's. prices would go up, then development then down back again, but it wont be quick it could take years. sorta like comparing it turning neighborhoods like mott haven/harlem into hot spots.im not so sure how much cheaper it would be as it would have to go up then come back down. at the very least in my unprofessional opinion it would stop prices from steadily rising evey year. i envision something around 100-300 less than now but years from now and less steady increases.

in summation, it will be hard for many and will displace many, but after normalization, people will move back into the city, just more of middle class, the lower class will be pushed out besides projects. then immigrants wont be living in the city but outside the limits in jersey etc.

Jersey has its own rent control/stabilization laws that are manipulating its housing markets in some areas.

[mark2kay]

Originally Posted by Robby2009

Yes, let's talk about a solution that would benefit BOTH landlords and low income tenants.

The answer is quite simple. Actually I have 2 solutions:

#1. The city picks up the tap and subsidizes the low income tenants that really need it. (That's how it should of been in the first place.)

The city does income verification on every tenant claiming that they can't afford to pay their rent. The city crunches the numbers and determines what's a reasonable portion for the tenant to pay. The city pays the differance.

Something very simular to the Section 8 program with a higher income threshold that lower middle class people fall into.

#2. If the city does not want to send out checks to landlords, why not apply the same concept in #1 but instead of sending a check to the landlord, deduct the total rent money the city would of paid by check to the landlord's property tax bill.

Something very simular to the S.C.R.I.E program. Or basically an extension of the SCRIE program.

This way, landlords get their Fair Market rent, and can finally start to invest money back into their building by fixing up apartments and beautifying their building and neighborhood. NO MORE SLUMLORDS. NO MORE EXCUSES. NO MORE GHETTOS OR RUNNED DOWN, DECAYING NEIGHBORHOODS...a cleaner, more desirable NY is the end result.

And most importantly.......NO ONE GETS DISPLACED because everyone is paying Fair Market rents. It's a win-win situation.

And if we can come up with billions of dollars to bailout AIG, Wall Street and Banks, then I'm sure we can come up with money that is a fraction of what these bailout costed us.

the funny thing was before researching ths is how i always that rent control/stabilized worked, wherin the city payed diff in market value in 1 way or another. the fact that it doesnt work like this doesnt relly help any1.

[cjma79]

Originally Posted by Robby2009

Yes, let's talk about a solution that would benefit BOTH landlords and low income tenants.

The answer is quite simple. Actually I have 2 solutions:

#1. The city picks up the tap and subsidizes the low income tenants that really need it. (That's how it should of been in the first place.)

The city does income verification on every tenant claiming that they can't afford to pay their rent. The city crunches the numbers and determines what's a reasonable portion for the tenant to pay. The city pays the differance.

Something very simular to the Section 8 program with a higher income threshold that lower middle class people fall into.

#2. If the city does not want to send out checks to landlords, why not apply the same concept in #1 but instead of sending a check to the landlord, deduct the total rent money the city would of paid by check to the landlord's property tax bill.

Something very simular to the S.C.R.I.E program. Or basically an extension of the SCRIE program.

This way, landlords get their Fair Market rent, and can finally start to invest money back into their building by fixing up apartments and beautifying their building and neighborhood. NO MORE SLUMLORDS. NO MORE EXCUSES. NO MORE GHETTOS OR RUNNED DOWN, DECAYING NEIGHBORHOODS...a cleaner, more desirable NY is the end result.

And most importantly.......NO ONE GETS DISPLACED because everyone is paying Fair Market rents. It's a win-win situation.

And if we can come up with billions of dollars to bailout AIG, Wall Street and Banks, then I'm sure we can come up with money that is a fraction of what these bailout costed us.

Is a good idea, but impossible, you are talking about millions of dollars that the city nor state has and another tax on this city would be crazy.
Also the federal government is not going to help.
Oh and we didn't came up with the billions China did, and we can't continue this path.

[mathjak107]

think about the fact that the only people benefiting are the people who have been in these apartments many many years...it benefits no one else as if you move in today your pretty much paying market rate and the increases are pretty much market..

in fact right now by artificially manipulating market rates those that are rent stablized are seeing rent increases at the same time normal market forces are bringing rents down or not changing in un-regulated apartments


rent stabilization is more the emporers new clothes for those of you arguing this that dont even live in a controlled apartment for decades already