Who has to pay to put carpet in a apartment? Story below

[lamontnow]

Originally Posted by nightcrawler

Carpeting does not last forever. Don't be an annoying tenant, just buy the carpet yourself, ( that way you can also pick the color and grade that suits you) obviously in RS your not moving any time soon.

I really have a problem with tenants that just don't want to spend a dime on their apartment because they are renting, but yet they have lived there for 20 years.

Your not entitled to carpeting from the LL, (it would be nice) but really...........at least he was willing to have it removed.... maybe they can have the floors refinished, that would be ideal.

Yet another illustration of the conflicting interests between building owners and long-time low-rent RS tenants. The problem is created by rent control. These conflicting interests don't exist in a free market system.

The problem is that this long-time RS tenant very likely pays a rent so low that the owner is taking a loss on that apartment. It is entirely natural that he will not want to sink any more money into a losing investment. That's why he will not pay for new carpeting and installation (and no, he will not refinish the floors for the same reason). What he will do is the minimum required by law. Again, it's natural and all that should be expected. I don't understand how a tenant paying such low rent could expect the same level of service as a tenant paying market rent. The same principle would apply in any business.

[nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by lamontnow

Yet another illustration of the conflicting interests between building owners and long-time low-rent RS tenants. The problem is created by rent control. These conflicting interests don't exist in a free market system.

The problem is that this long-time RS tenant very likely pays a rent so low that the owner is taking a loss on that apartment. It is entirely natural that he will not want to sink any more money into a losing investment. That's why he will not pay for new carpeting and installation (and no, he will not refinish the floors for the same reason). What he will do is the minimum required by law. Again, it's natural and all that should be expected. I don't understand how a tenant paying such low rent could expect the same level of service as a tenant paying market rent. The same principle would apply in any business.

Your absolutely right.

Although, I am not a building owner, I used to be a renter, I just bought stuff for the apartment myself, to me it is no big deal. Obviously I wasn't putting in a new kitchen or big stuff like that, but paint and flooring...yes.
But I do know what is fair. A RS tenant paying a low rent, to me, should just buy the carpet themselves, because again, they are not moving any time soon.

[modsquad81]

Originally Posted by lamontnow

Yet another illustration of the conflicting interests between building owners and long-time low-rent RS tenants. The problem is created by rent control. These conflicting interests don't exist in a free market system.

You're not serious are you? Do you mean to say there are no conflicting interests in a free market? Your'e impling that rent controls materialized in a vacuum. There was never a time when landlords were considered predatory in NYC?

Originally Posted by lamontnow

The problem is that this long-time RS tenant very likely pays a rent so low that the owner is taking a loss on that apartment. It is entirely natural that he will not want to sink any more money into a losing investment. That's why he will not pay for new carpeting and installation (and no, he will not refinish the floors for the same reason). What he will do is the minimum required by law. Again, it's natural and all that should be expected. I don't understand how a tenant paying such low rent could expect the same level of service as a tenant paying market rent. The same principle would apply in any business.

Please show me a landlord who will do above and beyond what is required by law and I'll show you a fool. The only circumstance that a landlord would put more then is required into an apartment is that he feels incredibly guilty about how much he's gouging his free market tenant and even then he's putting down carpet to keep this fool paying through the nose.

[modsquad81]

The problem is that this long-time RS tenant very likely pays a rent so low that the owner is taking a loss on that apartment. It is entirely natural that he will not want to sink any more money into a losing investment.

There is no evidence that long term RS tenants are living at the owner's expense. If that was the case there would be wholesale abandonment of entire neighborhoods. Why would anybody buy a residential property with RS tenants? Just for a tax shelter?

[lamontnow]

Originally Posted by modsquad81

You're not serious are you? Do you mean to say there are no conflicting interests in a free market? Your'e impling that rent controls materialized in a vacuum. There was never a time when landlords were considered predatory in NYC?


Please show me a landlord who will do above and beyond what is required by law and I'll show you a fool. The only circumstance that a landlord would put more then is required into an apartment is that he feels incredibly guilty about how much he's gouging his free market tenant and even then he's putting down carpet to keep this fool paying through the nose.

Your response indicates a lack of business experience - certainly in being an owner of residential real estate, or any business for that matter.

It's really not difficult to understand. When an owner is making a profit on an apartment, which presumabely he is at a market rent, then he has a financial incentive to keep the tenant (his customer) satisfied. That's why, in this example, he would replace the carpeting. Because if the tenant becomes dissatified living there the tenant would vacate and the owner would have the problem of replacing him with no additional financial benefit to the owner. I think it's called capitalism. Thus a high level of upkeep of the apartment is in the common interest of tenant and landlord. So how can you call a landlord who simply does what is in his business interests (providing services above the minimum is required by law) a fool?????

On the other hand, in a rent regulated situation where the tenant is paying a rent so low as to impose a loss on the owner for that apartment, the business incentive induces the owner to provide only what is legally required. Satisfying the tenant is not a factor. In fact, it is in the owner's business interest that the tenant does vacate. So obviously, the rent regulation system creates a conflict of interest in the level of apartment maintenance, as the carpet question illustrates.

These principles apply to any business. Educate yourself.

[modsquad81]

Originally Posted by modsquad81

You're implying that rent controls materialized in a vacuum. There was never a time when landlords were considered predatory in NYC?

I have to quote myself. And George Santayana,

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

[lamontnow]

Terms like "predatory" and rent "gouging" are just provocative and add nothing constructive to the discussion.

I've tried to explain what motivates investors in residential real estate. It's the same factors that motivate investors in other types of business. If you want to change behavior then you must change the incentives. And that means changing the business environment, i.e. the onerous rent control system.

You seem to be chomping at the bit for a discussion of the history of NYC rent control and the reasons it came into existence (which are quite different from what you imply). But that's off topic and should be brought up in a new thread. If you would like to start it I would be glad to respond.

[modsquad81]

Originally Posted by lamontnow

Terms like "predatory" and rent "gouging" are just provocative and add nothing constructive to the discussion.

I've tried to explain what motivates investors in residential real estate. It's the same factors that motivate investors in other types of business. If you want to change behavior then you must change the incentives. And that means changing the business environment, i.e. the onerous rent control system.

You seem to be chomping at the bit for a discussion of the history of NYC rent control and the reasons it came into existence (which are quite different from what you imply). But that's off topic and should be brought up in a new thread. If you would like to start it I would be glad to respond.

You seem to want it both ways. You say that investors are motivated to buy residential and that reason of course is making money, yet you bleat on and on and on about how RS tenants are living in apartments that owners make no money on. Under what circumstance would a person with capital buy into NYC residential real estate? Why did you buy into a building knowing that if your tenants stayed until the day they died they would beggar you?
The reasons? Either you're an octogenarian who was a victim of RS when it came into being or you inherited.
If the former,my sympathies, if the later then you are beneath contempt.
Oh. a third choice. You bought a RS apartment house under the assumption that RS would disappear. Good luck with that. LOL

[modsquad81]

Terms like "predatory" and rent "gouging" are just provocative and add nothing constructive to the discussion.

'Predatory" is the natural state of landlord/tenant relationships. To think otherwise is naive. where did I say "gouging"?

[nyfreesia]

Originally Posted by Nypa07

I have been living in a rent stabilize apartment for 27 years. My landlord came to my apartment last week and told me i need to put carpet in both of my bedrooms because the neighbor from downstairs is complaining about the noise. My landlord told me there is a law that there has to be carpet in 80% of an apartment. Which i have checked online and from what i have read it's not a law unless its written in your lease which is not written on mine. I bought all the materials and im going to have a friend put the carpet in. But im going to be out atleast $500. Do i have to pay for this or does the landlord have to pay?
Thanks everyone in advance for your response

That was a good question since it's not in your lease,although,I'd pay for it myself. And you may end up preferring having the carpet.

When my apartment had wood floors I thought I'd prefer to keep them rug free. The tenant below said it was like living under a rabbit I was so quiet, so their was no need for a rug and I could have my wood floors.
A new tenant moved in there, so I was asked to put in a rug as per the 80% carpeting, so I did and now I prefer having a rug! It makes an apartment more cozy,and it also quiets your own apartment from others as well.