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.
How is it that rents all over NYC are going down but they haven't gone down in the affordable housing lotteries? I can find rents lower outside of affordable housing but I still feel more comfortable renting from an affordable housing building.
I'm conflicted because I'm in the process for an affordable housing apartment but it's over $2,000 for a studio. Also future lotteries have the same high rent prices. I've seen prices around $1,500-$1,700 for a studio outside of housing.
So do I spend the extra money just because or do I just get a slumlord apartment for a cheaper price?
Rents set at these "affordable" or "low income" buildings are what they are and have been set by agreement between city and developer. They cannot be decreased without opening up a huge can of worms including entire financing of building.
Next welcome to world of rent stabilization (which covers most if not all such units). Regulated rents go only one way; up, or in case of past seven years with Sam the Eagle leaning on his handpicked RGB, zero increases. But that does not roll back or decrease current rent.
Now that Albany and Il Duce in their wisdom took away preferential rents, things are what they are; if you cannot or will not pay asking rent, then step aside....
None of this is new or exactly news; a good portion of people living in rent regulated apartments (rent controlled or stabilized) are technically busted as in rent poor. They are paying anywhere from one- quarter to one-third in in some cases nearly one-half of monthly income towards rent.
These people have got no choice. They likely cannot find an apartment cheaper elsewhere, nor can they afford to give up protections built into RC or RS regulations. So they pay rent instead of on the first whenever they can get it together before end of month. They also know thanks to rent regulation even if hauled into housing court for non-payment they cannot (or likely will not) be evicted for months, and or long as they can pay off arrears before marshal arrives they're good.
Know people both in aftermath of 2008 recession/credit crisis and now with covid-19 who bailed on RS apartments. They were out of work and running out of money and just didn't see point of running up several months of unpaid rent, dragging out the inevitable
If you look at people getting into these "affordable" apartments ten or so years down the line, a good number likely will be in same boat as other RS tenants; paying large share of their household income in rent just to remain in that apartment.
If you are already in, your rent is not dropping (can say the same for most market units - negotiate lower or no increase yes, but not less rent for the most part) but some of the 130-165 AMI affordable apartments currently in process ARE offering concessions such as 1-2 months free, I've gotten emails for them...
People in RS units have asked their LL if they can move into vacant apartments in building they know have lower rents. Nearly 100% of time answer is "no", and there aren't any laws forcing a LL to honor or even consider such a request.
People who get best deals out of these "affordable" units are those who are placed in such apartments *and* have vouchers (Section 8, or whatever). They only have to pay up to thirty percent (30%) of their monthly income with federal, state and or city picking up balance.
There are also some "low income" units where lottery apartments are shielded from future possible high increases. Something like above a certain percentage city will pay the balance..
If you are already in, your rent is not dropping (can say the same for most market units - negotiate lower or no increase yes, but not less rent for the most part) but some of the 130-165 AMI affordable apartments currently in process ARE offering concessions such as 1-2 months free, I've gotten emails for them...
Concessions are the only thing a LL can offer if units are RS. State took away preferential rents so if he lowers monthly rent by even a dime *it* becomes the new legal rent. LL's got burned when state made that change and won't go down that rabbit hole again.
I for sure saw a place go up on housing connect 2.0 where the minimum income was like 54k and the rent for the studio was 2400 like .... in what world?
On way home passed by Gristedes on Third avenue at 83rd, and saw the same GD "old Yorkville" people going through garbage in front of that store that have seen for years.
That is how things roll; they are most surely in rent regulated apartments, but after paying rent and rest of their monthly nut there isn't much left, so they dumpster dive for food and anything else.
These are middle aged persons, so am going with their rents are slightly to maybe well below market for area. Their situation highlights what is wrong with RS system. Those people would be better off in a NYCHA sort of situation where rent varies by income. So if you were making bank when moved in, but several years later suffered a reversal, rent could be adjusted.
These people don't have that luxury, only thing LL wants to hear is "give me my money". The particular reasons why someone cannot pay doesn't often befront a landlord of RS units, especially if they are below market rent.
Why do you think so many are out there crying about "canceling the rent"? Come 1 January 2021 people who haven't paid squat in months are going to be faced with huge back rent bills. Most will have no way of ever paying off that back rent while staying current on forward future payments.
I for sure saw a place go up on housing connect 2.0 where the minimum income was like 54k and the rent for the studio was 2400 like .... in what world?
BdeB and his administration just wants credit for creating the most "affordable" housing numbers in city history before he leaves office next year. What happens to particular households, and or even if many of those units are truly "affordable" doesn't seem to factor into the mix.
Low income persons and their supporters have complained from get go that most of these so called "affordable" units aren't even close; especially for some of the communities were buildings went up.
I for sure saw a place go up on housing connect 2.0 where the minimum income was like 54k and the rent for the studio was 2400 like .... in what world?
Although I have noticed the minimums have gone up on recent 130% projects, these apartments are never affordable for the low end of the range - seems like they set rent to be affordable only for the upper end of the bracket. I took a pass on so many places before landing in the place I'm in now, which is one of the few in my bracket that was actually affordable to me (i am around the lower middle of the 130% bracket, I fit more squarely in the 120% one but there are few of those).
I read somewhere that the state/city determines the upper number of the bracket, and the developer sets the lower one.
That kind of surprises me, then, that a landlord would want to attract people whose income really is too low to actually pay the rent! I guess it's one way to increase the renter pool of candidates, but with some risk.
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.
