Multi-Family Housing Coming Near You Soon! (New York, Levittown: lawyers, buying, school)
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.
I'll admit that while I live within NY, it's not the city, so I'm not 100% familiar with renting a house/apartment there. Consequently, I'll ask if, by law, there's a requirement that some percentage of landlords supply apartments that fall within some rental rate? Don't the theories of "free enterprise", as well as "supply and demand" come into play?
Furthermore, if potential employees can't find suitable housing within a reasonable distance of work, how will businesses operate, and NYC survive? Better yet, why has the problem become such an issue, at this point in time?
Unless housing falls under rent stabilization, is subsidized such as public housing, then no, a landlord can rent free market housing at whatever number he choses.
As for rest of it liberal progressive socialist democrats love to interfere or otherwise regulate everything; they can't help themselves.
Latest outrage you're seeing not just in NY but other areas of country as well is fact housing (both rental and purchase) costs keep going up pricing out certain demographics.
Socialist democrats are focusing on "communities of color" but fact of matter is housing prices affect everyone. However there isn't a universal solution that makes everyone happy.
Young people long have moved off LI or certain other parts of NY because they couldn't find affordable housing. A young man and his wife with maybe a kid or two looking for a nice starter home in better areas of LI, Westchester and some other places need to have deep pockets and or connections.
It's those last two bits that bother democrats. Not everyone has family that can help with first home purchase, great to excellent credit for a mortgage with a good rate and so on.
As for "supply and demand" well that's what democrats have planned. Vastly increase supply of housing (largely by forcing areas to build increased density) which in theory should bring down prices.
Unless housing falls under rent stabilization, is subsidized such as public housing, then no, a landlord can rent free market housing at whatever number he choses.
As for rest of it liberal progressive socialist democrats love to interfere or otherwise regulate everything; they can't help themselves.
Latest outrage you're seeing not just in NY but other areas of country as well is fact housing (both rental and purchase) costs keep going up pricing out certain demographics.
Socialist democrats are focusing on "communities of color" but fact of matter is housing prices affect everyone. However there isn't a universal solution that makes everyone happy.
Young people long have moved off LI or certain other parts of NY because they couldn't find affordable housing. A young man and his wife with maybe a kid or two looking for a nice starter home in better areas of LI, Westchester and some other places need to have deep pockets and or connections.
It's those last two bits that bother democrats. Not everyone has family that can help with first home purchase, great to excellent credit for a mortgage with a good rate and so on.
As for "supply and demand" well that's what democrats have planned. Vastly increase supply of housing (largely by forcing areas to build increased density) which in theory should bring down prices.
Thank you, for what appears to be a well thought out explanation.
I'll admit that while I live within NY, it's not the city, so I'm not 100% familiar with renting a house/apartment there. Consequently, I'll ask if, by law, there's a requirement that some percentage of landlords supply apartments that fall within some rental rate? Don't the theories of "free enterprise", as well as "supply and demand" come into play?
Furthermore, if potential employees can't find suitable housing within a reasonable distance of work, how will businesses operate, and NYC survive? Better yet, why has the problem become such an issue, at this point in time?
In many areas around the country, new build outs require a certain percentage be "affordable". Thinking about LI using that metric, for singles those rates are 40% - 60% of the median income. If the median is $130k at 40% that is $52K.
In NYC there are rent stabilized apartments that will get a 3.25% increase -all that is allowable this year.
In many areas around the country, new build outs require a certain percentage be "affordable". Thinking about LI using that metric, for singles those rates are 40% - 60% of the median income. If the median is $130k at 40% that is $52K.
In NYC there are rent stabilized apartments that will get a 3.25% increase -all that is allowable this year.
Not quite correct.
On June 21, 2022, the NYC Rent Guidelines Board adopted guidelines applicable to leases commencing between October 1, 2022 and September 30, 2023.
For a one-year lease commencing on or after October 1, 2022 and on or before September 30, 2023: 3.25%
For a two-year lease commencing on or after October 1, 2022 and on or before September 30, 2023: 5%
In many areas around the country, new build outs require a certain percentage be "affordable". Thinking about LI using that metric, for singles those rates are 40% - 60% of the median income. If the median is $130k at 40% that is $52K.
In NYC there are rent stabilized apartments that will get a 3.25% increase -all that is allowable this year.
That applies here to when they get tax breaks or project is over a certain size. Bottom line if they build cheaper housing it’s not going to lower the prices as most will be rentals. If they built “affordable homes†they need to be full market rate taxes on them. These places always get property tax abatements. I think you would get allot less opposition if you these homes apartments condo etc paid full prop taxes.
Harborfield estates was forced have to some affordable homes. These affordable homes get to pay 6-7k a year in taxes my friend who lives there and all the neighbors pay 25-26k. These “affordable†ones should be paying full rate school taxes.
In many areas around the country, new build outs require a certain percentage be "affordable". Thinking about LI using that metric, for singles those rates are 40% - 60% of the median income. If the median is $130k at 40% that is $52K.
In NYC there are rent stabilized apartments that will get a 3.25% increase -all that is allowable this year.
But is it fair to those who already live in an upscale area, to have "affordable" housing forced upon them? Yes, I've heard all the hoopla about how the "woke" world is supposed to work, with all sorts of "equity" for everyone. However, equity should work both ways. If a segment of the population has worked hard, to get where they are, which includes a nice home, in a good neighborhood, why should they be required to subsidize those who aren't willing to put in the effort to earn the same level of success, but still want the perks that go along with it?
But is it fair to those who already live in an upscale area, to have "affordable" housing forced upon them? Yes, I've heard all the hoopla about how the "woke" world is supposed to work, with all sorts of "equity" for everyone. However, equity should work both ways. If a segment of the population has worked hard, to get where they are, which includes a nice home, in a good neighborhood, why should they be required to subsidize those who aren't willing to put in the effort to earn the same level of success, but still want the perks that go along with it?
Welcome to the new world, where the lazy bums want and get what the hardworking have. We are all equal now!!!
Correct, my reply didn't go into the rest of it, as it was in response to a previous post regarding rental rates remaining within a range and I did not see the benefit to going into the finer details.
But is it fair to those who already live in an upscale area, to have "affordable" housing forced upon them? Yes, I've heard all the hoopla about how the "woke" world is supposed to work, with all sorts of "equity" for everyone. However, equity should work both ways. If a segment of the population has worked hard, to get where they are, which includes a nice home, in a good neighborhood, why should they be required to subsidize those who aren't willing to put in the effort to earn the same level of success, but still want the perks that go along with it?
I was replying to a prior poster who asked about rent ranges. This is not about what should or should not be, simply what is. Did not wish to start a debate about what has been determined.
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.
