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.
^thats what you all your rob and redistribution schemes do
Rent controls lead to housing shortages and deferred maintenance, how does that help anyone?
"housing shortages"
Buddy, someone is living in that home. Their home.
"Deferred maintenance" should be handled in the contract and in the law.
You guys are supposed to hate "home-stealing" Communists but are apparently fine with "no rights for the small fry" when the one in power is some private home renter random person.
Loopholes should definitely be fixed, but poor old people should not be kicked out because they didn't keep pace with the "income growth" of the neighbors around them.
Buddy, someone is living in that home. Their home.
"Deferred maintenance" should be handled in the contract and in the law.
You guys are supposed to hate "home-stealing" Communists but are apparently fine with "no rights for the small fry" when the one in power is some private home renter random person.
Loopholes should definitely be fixed, but poor old people should not be kicked out because they didn't keep pace with the "income growth" of the neighbors around them.
I think kicking people out of their homes because "I can now charge more for this area" is extremely more egregious (in the sense of shockingly terrible, not shockingly good). Especially if the rentees are elderly, and especially since taxes can (and probably are) adjusted to be fair for the renter.
Had there not been egregious rent control the rent would have gone up gradually like every other apartment not subject to it. At some point if you cannot afford to live there any longer then you have to move. If you rent a dwelling for 10 years (or some other arbitrary long period) do you expect (or demand) the owner not to increase your rent over that time?
Last edited by redwood66; 04-29-2018 at 01:20 PM..
Rent control in NYC is profoundly unfair in how it distorts the market. It protects older, higher income tenants at the expense of younger, lower income tenants. Because this family is paying $100/month, younger people in the building with less money will have to pay more to make it up.
I think kicking people out of their homes because "I can now charge more for this area" is extremely more egregious (in the sense of shockingly terrible, not shockingly good). Especially if the rentees are elderly, and especially since taxes can (and probably are) adjusted to be fair for the renter.
Most landlords probably would kick people out if they are good tenants even if they could get more rent , because there are costs to turn over .
But landlords are running a business and not a charity at the end of the day .
Also elderly people have had a lifetime to buy property somewhere .
Being a life long renter is a horrible plan .
Plus there are a lot of government programs to help the elderly.
Had there not been egregious rent control the rent would have gone up gradually like every other apartment not subject it. At some point if you cannot afford to live there any longer then you have to move. If you rent a dwelling for 10 years (or some other arbitrary long period) do you expect (or demand) the owner not to increase your rent over that time?
I just think we should try to be kind to our poor and elderly.
Plus, like I said, the renter would be helped through lowering his taxes given it is rent-controlled/stabilized.
I guess you are saying "when the area is becoming better, and you are not, then you must be kicked out." I guess that there is nothing specifically wrong with such economic segregation. But I think we should care about our elderly being comfortable and our poor feeling at least somewhat cared for.
Rent control in NYC is profoundly unfair in how it distorts the market. It protects older, higher income tenants at the expense of younger, lower income tenants. Because this family is paying $100/month, younger people in the building with less money will have to pay more to make it up.
Yeah , older people have had decades to build up their careers , save and invest .
There are a ton of people living in NYC I’m sure that could afford market rents but wouldn’t pay them if they had to and would actually move to another city .
Same thing in LA and San Francisco.
I just don’t think having such a huge number of people subsidized is a great thing .
Rent control in NYC is profoundly unfair in how it distorts the market. It protects older, higher income tenants at the expense of younger, lower income tenants. Because this family is paying $100/month, younger people in the building with less money will have to pay more to make it up.
It is indeed horrible that rich people like Trump keep abusing any loophole that they can find (and they sure find plenty given that they already have the resources to find the loopholes).
So some lady manipulated the legal system to live in someone else's property for life essentially for free, but it's the PROPERTY OWNERS who are the greedy ones.
This is what America is up against -- people like this poster, the lady he supports, and a legal system that sides with them against all common sense never mind sensible public policy.
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.
