Do you regret giving up a rent-stabilized apartment, even if you hate it? (tenant, luxury)
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.
its kinda hard to have sympathy b/c its ppl like you that indirectly cause the jacked up rents/ take advantage of loopholes/ and most important take away homes from more economically disadvantaged people. And yeah cuz we know this forum tends to attract race baiters no poverty doesn't know color. Granted a rent stabilized unit could be as much as $2600/m.
If you can afford market rate rent in NYC for a while sound like years, you really have no business occupying a rental apartment originally designed for people living at the poverty line or "middle class" pay check to paycheck.
By law, the landlord is suppose to make the repairs and you can nag, but the incentive isn't there and the law surrounding this isn't really enforced. The landlord can legally make the place near inhospitable doesn't mind paying fines to get you out so the unit can be switched to market rate.
I am not defending the op keeping an apartment if it is not his primary but you have a totally wrong impression of what rent stabilization represents
Show us all where because an apartment is stabilized it is ever means tested or designed for poverty level people ...that is a nyc housing project you are referring to , not stabilized apartments which can go for up to 2700 a month .
RENT STABIIZATION HAS MORE THAN HALF OF ALL RENTALS IN NYC AND THE BOROUGHS UNDER ITS CONTROL .
SO ACCORDING TO YOUR MIS INFORMED LOGIC EVERYONE WHO HAS SIMPLY BEEN IN APARTMENTS FOR DECADES SHOULD MOVE IF THEY ARE OVER WHAT YOU CONSIDER A CERTAIN INCOME OR NET WORTH .
I think you need to learn the difference. not only is rent stabilization not dependent on a tenants assets and never was intended to be but even a link to income has been removed since in no way are they considered low income or even affordable housing .
This has to be one of the most ill informed posts in a while here
Last edited by mathjak107; 03-06-2021 at 09:34 AM..
Rent stabilization is a form of price control. It was originally designed to help the poor(all degrees versions of it) by making things affordable. RS in NYC was a direct response to unchecked rent hikes that occurred iunno late 60s. RS units did not have $2700/m lease 60 years ago and the COL was far less. Wages were also more or less in line with productivity cuz Unions. Rent in the 1960s was $100-$400 a month. Less when you factor in roommates. The law was not designed for people that made more than $5000/yr which was considered Middle Class back in those days. Also, iunno when decline started but Rent Control units used to be be more widespread than RS units so yes some people were paying $50/m to live in NYC of all places.
Now lets put things into perspective and give a holistic view of how ****ed up the current rental market is and both sides DO share the blame.
A RS unit lets say started at iunno $365 in 1969 jumps to $2600/m today in 2021. Politicians that introduced RS were not thinking about the future. They compromised by just addressing the immediate issue and it had unintended consequences. Today, we have a situation where RS units are > Market rate rents or nearly the same. So, yes the policy was designed to help the poor and essentially replaced rent control. The way RS was implemented longterm and how it continues to be abused today like the OP here, was not the outcome wanted or intent.
Fun fact: NYC gov thinks you are not at poverty level if an individual makes $18K/yr which is a joke. Poverty in NYC is an arbitrary number and politicized. If you're household income is <$60K and you choose to live in NYC defacto poor and experiencing a form of poverty. Biggest joke in Amurica is convincing the 60% of Americans that make less than $40K/yr is not poor but "low income" a new term these days. Poverty has many types. Poverty isn't just tents and no running water. Poverty also includes the working poor. You can own a car, rent an apartment, live pay check. If you can't buy your $6 box of cereal, go on vacations every year, invest, send kids off to university that too is another type of poverty called "Relative Poverty"
I challenge you too show us one rule or regulation where tenants are determined by assets or income . It used to be not until 200k for two years and no net worth limitation , but even that is no longer a factor .
Rs was to stop rent gauging by landlords , it never restricted a tenants wealth and income was capped atm 200k for two years ..is that low income to you ?
So how dare you berate someone making up a story about what you think should be as far as it being only low income housing
Go ahead , we are waiting. Show us where rent stabilized apartments are for low income people only ...or there are any financial restrictions on tenants ...who cares how you think things should be .
Yeah everyone will move because you think so
just nonsense. , and then you tell me I am a troll ....
Last edited by mathjak107; 03-06-2021 at 11:31 AM..
Also rent stabilized apartments don’t stop at 2800 a month either ...they can be still stabilized and be many more thousands a month .some approach 5k a month .
So still think stabilization is for the poor and low income ?
There are programs like the 421a program that allow developers to put up luxury market rate buildings and in exchange for tax abatements and low financing they agree to allow some of the apartments to go in to an affordable housing program while the whole rest of the development is market price ....all apartments remain stabilized ,even the market ones and only get the rent increases allowed by the board .
Once the tax abatement ends and a tenant moves out ,the apartment is no longer stabilized
I am not defending the op keeping an apartment if it is not his primary but you have a totally wrong impression of what rent stabilization represents
Show us all where because an apartment is stabilized it is ever means tested or designed for poverty level people ...that is a nyc housing project you are referring to , not stabilized apartments which can go for up to 2700 a month .
RENT STABIIZATION HAS MORE THAN HALF OF ALL RENTALS IN NYC AND THE BOROUGHS UNDER ITS CONTROL .
SO ACCORDING TO YOUR MIS INFORMED LOGIC EVERYONE WHO HAS SIMPLY BEEN IN APARTMENTS FOR DECADES SHOULD MOVE IF THEY ARE OVER WHAT YOU CONSIDER A CERTAIN INCOME OR NET WORTH .
I think you need to learn the difference. not only is rent stabilization not dependent on a tenants assets and never was intended to be but even a link to income has been removed since in no way are they considered low income or even affordable housing .
This has to be one of the most ill informed posts in a while here
Response: Opinion
When one can pay between $200 and $700 per month on a rent stabilized
apartment it is a housing project no matter how you cut it and only rent stabilization in name.
When one can pay between $200 and $700 per month on a rent stabilized
apartment it is a housing project no matter how you cut it and only rent stabilization in name.
That would be still wrong ...a nyc housing project has income restrictions , stabilized does not .
What you think should be and what the laws and regulations say are two different things .
So , a nyc housing project has different requirements.....
Highly unlikely you will find stabilized , livable apartments at old rent controlled levels either ...there may be some left but those crazy rents we hear of are usually left over from rent control not rent stabilization ..they too are different and most are gone. Only 7 or 8% of rentals have rent controlled tenants ...over 50% have stabilized tenants
That would be still wrong ...a nyc housing project has income restrictions , stabilized does not .
What you think should be and what the laws and regulations say are two different things .
So , a nyc housing project has different requirements.....
Highly unlikely you will find stabilized , livable apartments at old rent controlled levels either ...there may be some left but those crazy rents we hear of are usually left over from rent control not rent stabilization ..they too are different and most are gone
Response: Opinion
Absolutely.....................things evolve over time for rioting in the streets for affordable housing to rent control to
rent stabilization to parents dying handing apartments down generation to generation of children until one day Ptttthhhhhhh...........no more.
All the while..........................Landlords/Homeowners take the brunt of the beatings.
Rent stabilization is a form of price control. It was originally designed to help the poor(all degrees versions of it) by making things affordable. RS in NYC was a direct response to unchecked rent hikes that occurred iunno late 60s. RS units did not have $2700/m lease 60 years ago and the COL was far less. Wages were also more or less in line with productivity cuz Unions. Rent in the 1960s was $100-$400 a month. Less when you factor in roommates. The law was not designed for people that made more than $5000/yr which was considered Middle Class back in those days. Also, iunno when decline started but Rent Control units used to be be more widespread than RS units so yes some people were paying $50/m to live in NYC of all places.
Now lets put things into perspective and give a holistic view of how ****ed up the current rental market is and both sides DO share the blame.
A RS unit lets say started at iunno $365 in 1969 jumps to $2600/m today in 2021. Politicians that introduced RS were not thinking about the future. They compromised by just addressing the immediate issue and it had unintended consequences. Today, we have a situation where RS units are > Market rate rents or nearly the same. So, yes the policy was designed to help the poor and essentially replaced rent control. The way RS was implemented longterm and how it continues to be abused today like the OP here, was not the outcome wanted or intent.
Fun fact: NYC gov thinks you are not at poverty level if an individual makes $18K/yr which is a joke. Poverty in NYC is an arbitrary number and politicized. If you're household income is <$60K and you choose to live in NYC defacto poor and experiencing a form of poverty. Biggest joke in Amurica is convincing the 60% of Americans that make less than $40K/yr is not poor but "low income" a new term these days. Poverty has many types. Poverty isn't just tents and no running water. Poverty also includes the working poor. You can own a car, rent an apartment, live pay check. If you can't buy your $6 box of cereal, go on vacations every year, invest, send kids off to university that too is another type of poverty called "Relative Poverty"
You think all those people coming home from war just started moving to the rent-stabilized apartments in the most expensive parts of the city because they could afford it now? Rent stabilization has nothing to do with income level.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
You think all those people coming home from war just started moving to the rent-stabilized apartments in the most expensive parts of the city because they could afford it now? Rent stabilization has nothing to do with income level.
Some people just don't understand real estate in NYC. Every more funny is people in RC or RS apts and don't know how it works.
In practice it just happens to work out that 2/3’s of those who are in stabilized apartments are lower incomes but that is just because most renters are renters because they can’t afford to buy ...it is not because of design .
Most areas always have more owners then rentals but because nyc is the unskilled labor capital of the country we get more renters..
The other third are renters for lots of reasons ..many are snow birds or own vacation homes ...some like us don’t want to own anymore , we owned enough real estate in our life time ...many in our building where we live are professionals and they are renting so they can buy practices or become law partners and will buy years from now
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.
