NY Times: rent control made millionaires of tenants in Manhattan building (apartment, rental market)
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.
That is true but the point is that these tenants did not own their apartments and therefore shouldn't have had any rights to claim money for them. The landlord should have been allowed to non-renew their lease and that should have been the end of it.
No different that a new cell phone company paying your early termination fee to the old cell phone company. Sometimes thats the cost of doing business. No one had the foresight to see that Manhattan real estate would increase so much in value, and of course nobody is in the business to lose money, they are in it to make as much as possible. Now call me crazy, but if rent stabilization was such a bad idea, why wasn't it denounced from the beginning? I have yet to see documentation that shows an outcry against it fron its onset. However, fast forward some years, and we have suddenly discovered our property has appreciated, but state law is preventing us from getting our money. Why should landlords be entitled to have a bulletproof business. Hey, guess what? nobody sells cassette tapes no more, so people start selling CDs. Landlords have to start getting creative if they really want to make a profit nowadays.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
No different that a new cell phone company paying your early termination fee to the old cell phone company. Sometimes thats the cost of doing business. No one had the foresight to see that Manhattan real estate would increase so much in value, and of course nobody is in the business to lose money, they are in it to make as much as possible. Now call me crazy, but if rent stabilization was such a bad idea, why wasn't it denounced from the beginning? I have yet to see documentation that shows an outcry against it fron its onset. However, fast forward some years, and we have suddenly discovered our property has appreciated, but state law is preventing us from getting our money. Why should landlords be entitled to have a bulletproof business. Hey, guess what? nobody sells cassette tapes no more, so people start selling CDs. Landlords have to start getting creative if they really want to make a profit nowadays.
I would have denounced it from the beginning. This is what happens when the government interferes with the free market system. I believe that if they get rid of this garbage, a lot of people will move to the outer boroughs and the market rents in Manhattan will actually drop. Right now there is too much demand for the supply of apartments here and this why the rents have gotten so ridiculous. So I am overpaying because there are hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, living in Manhattan that cannot really afford to live here, or can afford to but are paying peanuts for their apartments.
I would have denounced it from the beginning. This is what happens when the government interferes with the free market system. I believe that if they get rid of this garbage, a lot of people will move to the outer boroughs and the market rents in Manhattan will actually drop. Right now there is too much demand for the supply of apartments here and this why the rents have gotten so ridiculous. So I am overpaying because there are hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, living in Manhattan that cannot really afford to live here, or can afford to but are paying peanuts for their apartments.
Price is not going to force people to move to the outer boroughs. I see it time and time on this board again, the first place people ask about is Manhattan and they are willing to do whatever it takes to live there. The minority (I am not referring to race, but to sheer number of people moving here) settle for living in the outer boroughs. If rent stabilization is abolished and the price drops, guess what? More people are going to try to move to Manhattan now, landlords will try to capitalize on the demand and rent will skyrocket. You have to pay to play. No rent stabilization = people with that much more money coming to the city to live.
Otherwise if rent stabilization was such a monster, it would be a city wide problem., not just exclusive to Manhattan. Its an island, we can't build out. There will always be a higher demand then supply. There's tons of apartments in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens that are affordable right now. When I was renting, I found my first place in Queens in 2 weeks.
You're saying you would have denounced it, but many did not when these laws came into effect. Why? Because they thought it was gonna be a good deal - and for a time it was. Obviously nobody was complaining at the time. But real estate is a business like anything else and you have to adapt to stay successful. Now the landlords want to cry wolf because of their lack of business acumen. You should be thanking your holy stars that for the majority of you building owners, NYC hasn't augmented the property tax system because you're already getting over on that one.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
No different that a new cell phone company paying your early termination fee to the old cell phone company. Sometimes thats the cost of doing business. No one had the foresight to see that Manhattan real estate would increase so much in value, and of course nobody is in the business to lose money, they are in it to make as much as possible. Now call me crazy, but if rent stabilization was such a bad idea, why wasn't it denounced from the beginning? I have yet to see documentation that shows an outcry against it fron its onset. However, fast forward some years, and we have suddenly discovered our property has appreciated, but state law is preventing us from getting our money. Why should landlords be entitled to have a bulletproof business. Hey, guess what? nobody sells cassette tapes no more, so people start selling CDs. Landlords have to start getting creative if they really want to make a profit nowadays.
Landlords are not entitled to a bulletproof business.
If property values go down, their rental units go down.
Here however if property values (and taxes and repair costs) go up, they are chained to low rents. Making it a lose-lose situation.
Rent Stabilization and Controls are ARBITRARY policies that aid only a SMALL percentage of people, primarily SINGLES who are the most mobile tenants anyhow.
Landlords get creative, by taking the units they own, and multiplying it by market rate. Then they bill the rent stabilized / controlled people their rent, and divide the remainder amongst the other apartments.
In every situation those who are not within Stabilized / Controlled apartments pay more to make up the costs.
There was no backlash when it began, because the prices in the housing market may have varied by 5-10% for those on Rent Control, to those not.
Now it can go as high as 1000%?!
There can be NO justification that anyone on earth should be paying 10x lower rent then their neighbor just because they've been renting it for a long while.
If you can't afford to live somewhere, you'll need to move.
This may allow someone else who couldn't previously afford to live there- to be able to.
Let the market decide who gets to live where, not the Gov't to pick favorites.
Landlords are not entitled to a bulletproof business.
If property values go down, their rental units go down.
Here however if property values (and taxes and repair costs) go up, they are chained to low rents. Making it a lose-lose situation.
Rent Stabilization and Controls are ARBITRARY policies that aid only a SMALL percentage of people, primarily SINGLES who are the most mobile tenants anyhow.
Landlords get creative, by taking the units they own, and multiplying it by market rate. Then they bill the rent stabilized / controlled people their rent, and divide the remainder amongst the other apartments.
In every situation those who are not within Stabilized / Controlled apartments pay more to make up the costs.
There was no backlash when it began, because the prices in the housing market may have varied by 5-10% for those on Rent Control, to those not.
Now it can go as high as 1000%?!
There can be NO justification that anyone on earth should be paying 10x lower rent then their neighbor just because they've been renting it for a long while.
If you can't afford to live somewhere, you'll need to move.
This may allow someone else who couldn't previously afford to live there- to be able to.
Let the market decide who gets to live where, not the Gov't to pick favorites.
Ha! Show me one industry where the market regulates itself without any supervision. Make me a believer.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Ha! Show me one industry where the market regulates itself without any supervision. Make me a believer.
The housing rental market in 19,995 municipal governments out of the 20,000 in the United States.
Government FORCING you to lose money on a customer/client is absurd.
Even if rules exist as they do, renters should be forced to bare-minimum pay cost on their rental apt.
It does hurt the landlords, but as we know, most are rich as kings from purchasing a long long time ago, or inheriting these properties.
Certainly not hurting the lucky people who are living in such situations.
... only hurting EVERY other person who rents at market value or is out priced even before coming here.
they are rich as kings :? ha ha ha ha ... to tell you the truth just being invested in simple index funds since i have been involved with real estate blew the real estate returns away and with no headaches. that comment is just silly you made..perhaps you need a pay cut because you held a job a long time
7th floor show me a profession where your pay is cut by the length of time your on the job or have to take your income and subsidize others merly because thats what you do for a living. except for a dr getting paid from an hmo i cant think of any and that dr has a choice of joining that hmo or not. there arent many working class jobs that have incomes setby the city and are forced to take below market wages except those who chose real estate in nyc
Last edited by mathjak107; 02-08-2011 at 03:58 AM..
Price is not going to force people to move to the outer boroughs. I see it time and time on this board again, the first place people ask about is Manhattan and they are willing to do whatever it takes to live there. The minority (I am not referring to race, but to sheer number of people moving here) settle for living in the outer boroughs. If rent stabilization is abolished and the price drops, guess what? More people are going to try to move to Manhattan now, landlords will try to capitalize on the demand and rent will skyrocket. You have to pay to play. No rent stabilization = people with that much more money coming to the city to live.
Otherwise if rent stabilization was such a monster, it would be a city wide problem., not just exclusive to Manhattan. Its an island, we can't build out. There will always be a higher demand then supply. There's tons of apartments in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens that are affordable right now. When I was renting, I found my first place in Queens in 2 weeks.
You're saying you would have denounced it, but many did not when these laws came into effect. Why? Because they thought it was gonna be a good deal - and for a time it was. Obviously nobody was complaining at the time. But real estate is a business like anything else and you have to adapt to stay successful. Now the landlords want to cry wolf because of their lack of business acumen. You should be thanking your holy stars that for the majority of you building owners, NYC hasn't augmented the property tax system because you're already getting over on that one.
Yes, but people are not forced to move to those places because their rent regulated Manhattan rent is less than the rent in those areas right now. If rent regulation is abolished, I do not think Manhattan rent will become super cheap, but I think it'll drop a few hundred dollars for the average apartment. So guess, what- all those rent regulated tenants still will not be able to afford Manhattan market rents. How many people paying $700 a month for their 2 bedroom apartments on the UWS do you think will stick around when it goes up to let's say $1,800?
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.
