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.
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.
Its far from easy to make up the difference because until the apartments are vacant and over 2000 a month they are still regulated. the other issue is like anything in this world you can only charge the going rate for an apartment regardless what your expenses are.
even if that apartment becomes deregulated the markets determine the maximum rent you can get not the shortfall your trying to make up.
This conversation pops up semi-regularly on here. Rent stabilization/control WAS a good policy, but having a policy that is inflexible and doesn't change with the changing world, and is heavily politicized and benefits a segment of the population at the expense of everyone else always leads to problems, corruption, and distorts markets. And that is what we are seeing here...
In a perfect world there would be no need for it, but clearly this system needs to be adjusted...and the idea that is should remain frozen in time as if we are still living in 1960 is silly. The world has changed, but why do we believe rent stabilization/control shouldn't? And simply raising the threshold to include even more people under rent stabilization doesn't solve the problems or make the market healthier, it simply is a vehicle to pander for votes.
And from what I can tell, these restrictions keep neighborhoods from evolving...making them stagnant and further distorting neighborhoods. We can have reasonable tenant protections without having undue burdens on Landlords...and as expenses go thru the roof while rents stagnate, guess what happens? And we all pay the price for this corrupt system.
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.
Name me one industry that regulates itself without the parenting of another agency. You haven't done so yet.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
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
Sure there are....NYPD comes to mind. They got their pay increase, but I distinctly remember a few years back rookies starting at $25K to risk their life everyday on the streets. Perfect example. Its a working class job, income set by the city and are forced to take below market wage. Maybe they should become landlords. LOL
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
This conversation pops up semi-regularly on here. Rent stabilization/control WAS a good policy, but having a policy that is inflexible and doesn't change with the changing world, and is heavily politicized and benefits a segment of the population at the expense of everyone else always leads to problems, corruption, and distorts markets. And that is what we are seeing here...
In a perfect world there would be no need for it, but clearly this system needs to be adjusted...and the idea that is should remain frozen in time as if we are still living in 1960 is silly. The world has changed, but why do we believe rent stabilization/control shouldn't? And simply raising the threshold to include even more people under rent stabilization doesn't solve the problems or make the market healthier, it simply is a vehicle to pander for votes.
And from what I can tell, these restrictions keep neighborhoods from evolving...making them stagnant and further distorting neighborhoods. We can have reasonable tenant protections without having undue burdens on Landlords...and as expenses go thru the roof while rents stagnate, guess what happens? And we all pay the price for this corrupt system.
This I can agree with. I don't have any issue with the current system being modified. I do have a problem with thinking that landlords don't need to be governed. Everybody has to answer to somebody. You make pharmaceuticals? Report to the FDA. You grow crops? Report to the USDA. You want to be on TV? Report to the FCC. Wanna play stocks and bonds? SEC. Get the picture? What makes landlords think they can be exempt?
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
I'm a salaried employee. If my boss chooses to give me a pay cut, I can choose to continue working there or look for a new job. Life is unfair.
Ahhhhh but you can fire your boss and are free to seek employment for more money elsewhere. landlords can not fire their tenant.thats the difference. a landlord is stuck,an employee isnt .
7th I don't think the issue is that there should be no regulations, the issue is the current regulations are completely out of wack and have been hijacked by politicians seeking votes at the expense of every day NYers, our neighborhoods, and Landlords.
I know that almost every other place in the country does pretty well without rent control/stabilization, and I don't see a justification for these restrictions here. You are a renter, and after your lease is up you have the ability to leave AND the Landlord should have the ability not to renew. As is stands now the market is distorted, Landlord's essentially have no right to not renew you and this just isn't healthy. Maybe we need a limit to this "You have to renew me forever nonsense"..maybe 5 years at which point Landlord's may choose not to renew a tenant. Is that really unreasonable?
I think rent stabilzied places should only be in poor neighborhoods, for people who need it.
In poor neighborhoods the rent is usually cheap anyway, so no need for this.
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.
