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.
Well again these solutions would be okay for the extremely poor only. But there are a whole set of people that don't qualify now for free medical services & food stamps and probably wouldn't qualify for the proposed "rent stamps" as their earnings/savings are slightly above the cut off point in order to receive these types of aid. All those people would be homeless and there is a large of number of people like that.
Then raise the cut off point so they can qualify but having a LL subsidize a tenant is insane. Keep in mind that the LL pays MARKET expenses. If the LL was paying below market expenses then it wouldn't be such a big deal as the below market rent and the below market expenses cancel each other out. However, thats not the case.
“A girl in a bikini was in every single lounge chair”
Whaa? I'll pay anything!
Yeahhhh, that popped out at me too. That alone is worth the $5G each month!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava61
Well again these solutions would be okay for the extremely poor only. But there are a whole set of people that don't qualify now for free medical services & food stamps and probably wouldn't qualify for the proposed "rent stamps" as their earnings/savings are slightly above the cut off point in order to receive these types of aid. All those people would be homeless and there is a large of number of people like that.
Chava,
Your logic is flawed. You say many people are not poor enough for "rent stamps" and so they would be homeless. Well, we could make the cutoff for rent stamps the same as it is now for food stamps. Are there now "a large number" of people starving because they are not poor enough for food stamps? No. If the income requirement would be the same for rent stamps then the the homeless problem that you fear would not materialize.
Hey, I'm just suggesting a possible solution to the housing problem in NYC. And rent regulation is a significant part of the problem, not the solution. As Victor said, a government subsidy for those who can't afford market rent, and a free housing market, would result in a win-win-win situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanAdventurer
I do agree with this...you should not be able to pass down a rent-stabilized lease to your kids. That's crap. Once the last original lease signer moves/dies/whatever, the apt should go back on the block for market rate, whatever it happens to be at time. If the market rate happens to be above $2k but the city deems it still necessary to have rent stabilzation, maybe they should rethink that threshold?
They won't change that ridiculous inheritance rule (BTW, it doen't have to be the kids, it can go to anyone meeting a certain requirement) or any of the other, even more egregious RS rules. Wait. I shouldn't say that. They may change them but change them for the worse! Since the Dems took complete control of Albany last year, the pro-reg tenant lobbyists have been pushing to make things even weirder. It's all political. It's up to the State Senate.
Yeahhhh, that popped out at me too. That alone is worth the $5G each month!
Chava,
Your logic is flawed. You say many people are not poor enough for "rent stamps" and so they would be homeless. Well, we could make the cutoff for rent stamps the same as it is now for food stamps. Are there now "a large number" of people starving because they are not poor enough for food stamps? No. If the income requirement would be the same for rent stamps then the the homeless problem that you fear would not materialize.
Hey, I'm just suggesting a possible solution to the housing problem in NYC. And rent regulation is a significant part of the problem, not the solution. As Victor said, a government subsidy for those who can't afford market rent, and a free housing market, would result in a win-win-win situation.
Your logic is flawed as it is quite obvious you haven't been in situation that I am talking about. The cut off now for medical insurance I know is too low and I would assume the same goes for food stamps. So to completely eliminate rent stabilization at once is completely impractical.
Well said Lamontnow. Being a LL in NY is the only industry that allows the "costumer" to get "goods" for up to half the market price. Sometimes even more. The difference in price, the LL is suppose to "absorb" as a lost because every LL has deep pockets and wealthy like Trump. Give me a break. Try going to your local Bodega or Supermarket and tell the owner/manager that you can't afford a gallon of milk therefore to give it to you for half the price and the other half the owner/manager will "absorb" as a lost for the good of helping someone else. Then tell me how long it took him to kick you out the store. In this case, when someone can't afford to pay food, the city/gov't gives the person food stamps to buy food. The Bodega/Supermarket owner doesn't subsidize or take a lost. After all, this is a business NOT a handout.
So my question is, why should it be any different for LLs? If a tenant can't afford to pay the rent, have the city/gov't give the tenant a "rent stamp" like Lamontnow said or call the subsidies whatever you want. That way LLs get what he is entitled to, the tenant gets a well maintained apartment with no maintanance issues since now the LL is no longer short on cash and is able to afford to properly maintain his building. In addition, this type of business atsmophere incourages developers to build new apartment buildings knowing that they will be able to get the market rent neccessary to become a profitable business for years to come while providing a service to NYers. Hence, the NY housing shortage is no longer an issue which consequently lowers the market rents of apartments since there is now an increase in supply to meet demand which creates competiton with LLs to offer the best price poosible otherwise they will lose their prospective tenant to another LL that gave them a better price. EWWWWWWW....the evils of a free market society. The horror!
All joking aside, I think what I just proposed is a very reasonable solution that is a win-win-win for all parties invloved. Landlords, tenants and the city.
I believe a single person can make up to 40k/yr and still qualify for Section 8. Get rid of Rent Stablization and put anyone who's income is not quite that great onto section 8.
This is just another program NYS uses to try and pad it's economic and polticial power over everyday citizens.
I believe a single person can make up to 40k/yr and still qualify for Section 8. Get rid of Rent Stablization and put anyone who's income is not quite that great onto section 8.
This is just another program NYS uses to try and pad it's economic and polticial power over everyday citizens.
try convincing the goverment to subsidize 1 million apartments that are currently under rent stabilization across the city...
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
If you don't like rent stabilization, why become a landlord in NYC? This isn't a new program. It's not like it crept up on you overnight. No new units are required to be stabilized unless they were subsidized or built using tax benefits, such as the units in question in this article. The number of controlled and stabilized units has gone down over time, despite hysterics to the contrary.
If you don't like rent stabilization, why become a landlord in NYC? This isn't a new program. It's not like it crept up on you overnight. No new units are required to be stabilized unless they were subsidized or built using tax benefits, such as the units in question in this article. The number of controlled and stabilized units has gone down over time, despite hysterics to the contrary.
i used to work at a landlord-tenant housing law firm from 2000-2003, and even back then, almost ten years ago, it was very rare that we had a case where the tenant was still under rent control (not stabilization). maybe no more than 5 times in the 3.5 years i worked there, and we handled thousands of cases each year.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
i used to work at a landlord-tenant housing law firm from 2000-2003, and even back then, almost ten years ago, it was very rare that we had a case where the tenant was still under rent control (not stabilization). maybe no more than 5 times in the 3.5 years i worked there, and we handled thousands of cases each year.
In what borough was this housing law firm at?
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.
