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.
the real problem if you put the origonal landlords who were lied to who agreed to sign aboard for the rent regulated idea is this:
buying real estate that contains rent stabilized tenants is no different then buying any other business. you work the numbers based on return on investment. if the numbers are good its a go.
but what happens when expenses rise more then anticipated? well in a regular business you raise prices and market forces determine whether you can hold those price levels and be profitable once again. with real estate your stuck. if the increase the politics allow in rent isnt enough your sunk. you cant even sell the building. no one will buy a building with poor cash flow. soooooo you end up toughing it out sometimes for decades trying to catch up.
the thing that gets me is why those that dont even have an older apartment in a rent stabilized building think this is a good thing is beyond me.
even if you got an apartment in the last few years your rent is pretty much at market and the magic is gone of the days of the artificially low rent increases that left you paying under market rents,,
now the rents are real world and infact you got an increase the last 2 years where many of the non stabilized apartments saw rents stay the same or even drop.
i wont attempt to guess if rents would rise or drop if we did away with this crap but i will tell you that you would have soooo much of a better selection to choose from in rentals.
for those who arent aware except for low income and luxury buildings there were no rental buildings put up since the 1970's in new york city.
The problem is that it does not help you and me but all those benefiting from it do not see it as a bad thing. This will be the headline "Non-renewal of rent regulation laws leave hundreds of thousands of poor New Yorkers without a home."
So someone needs to spend money to really get the word out on all of this and be ready to combat the garbage that pro-regulation organizations will try to make people believe. No one will be left without a home, they will simply have to move to neighborhoods that can afford. And many of them are not poor.
Sad but true Newyorker24. So I guess the next best thing is to gradually phase it out so that its sort of becomes unnoticable. A gradual deregulation of apartments soften the blow and eases the transition from price control to free market.
Another good idea that should be given serious consideration is the City should starting a new program for landlords similar to the SCRIE Program for senior citizens.
The way it would work is every tenant on "paper" pays market rents...if the tenant can't afford it, the City would pay the landlord the difference not by sending the landlord a check like Section 8 but by crediting the landlord's property tax bill account the difference the tenant can't pay.
So as an example: If a tenant's market rent is $1,500 a month and it is determined that the Tenant can only afford to pay $1,000 a month in rent, the City would CREDIT the landlord's property tax account and subtract $6,000 ($500 x 12 months) from his property tax bill.
Therefore, if the landlord's initial property tax bill before deductions is say $60,000 a year, after crediting his account $6,000, his property tax bill is reduced to $54,000 using this single tenant unit example.
The City gives away millions of dollars every year in tax abatements for buildings that undergo capital improvements, land development among other things, why not offer these abatements to landlords so they can charge market rents and in turn the City can charge more in property taxes as former rent stabilized buildings will see a huge increase in rent rolls which will increase property value, which increases property taxes adding a new stream of revenue for the City to collect.
In this scenario, the landlord is kept happy by charging market rents, the tenant is kept happy as he doesn't have to dish out more money for rent and the City is happy as they will have a huge jump in revenue. A win-win for all!!!
A small number perhaps. But just as you claim manhattan as an island cannot be built out (not exactly true, see Battery Park), people'e incomes cannot be infinitely stretched.
It is a citywide problem, there are many landlords around the 5 boros suffering from it, it is simply MORE of a problem in manhattan.
Because WW2 had just ended, and as a means of keeping a stable economic environment after enduring the Great Depression and a massive world war.
It should have been shelved after 5 years - at most.
This is nonsense. It is not a level playing field, when the laws are so heavily stacked towards the tenants. Please explain in rational terms why it is acceptable for some people to pay below market rents, but everyone else must pay market rents. Even further, please explain why the RS tenants get to pay below market rents, while their landlords have to accept them - but have to endure market expense.
It is a DREADFUL system, and your question should be, if it was a good system, why isn't it in place elsewhere?
Not sure what this means, but given that NYC has the country's highest income taxes, not clear why someone would want other taxes to be also maximized...
If you read my previous posts, I am in agreement with modification of the system in place. I don't believe it should be abolished completely. And I said nothing about income tax. I touched on property tax. The system is out of whack. There are cases where 4 family brownstones that are selling for $900,000 have an annual property tax of $4,000. Thats $1,000 per tenant, or a whopping $85 bucks a month.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Show me one industry as massively over-regulated and interfered with (do I hear AT&T long distance?) that succeeded over the long run.
Anything that is in excess is doomed to fail, at both ends of the spectrum. Just as there cant be any over-regulation, there can't be any non-existent regulation as well.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Uh, no you miss the point. As a landlord or a tenant in a non-RS/RC-controlled apartment, you HAVE to stay in that situation.
It is equivalent to you taking a forced paycut - and not being allowed to change jobs - with your money being going to someone working next to you so that they can enjoy YOUR money.
Well that's part of life being unfair. Like I said, nobody forced landlords to own property. You guys just whine and complain about the situation instead of taking matters into your own hands. If its a losing situation, sell the building and cut your losses. Maybe you guys need to realize that being a landlord just isnt as profitable as it once was unless you're unstabilized. Those are the facts. And yes, it sucks. But what are you going to do about it? Face reality. ITS NOT A PROFITABLE BUSINESS ANYMORE. Change gears.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Sad but true Newyorker24. So I guess the next best thing is to gradually phase it out so that its sort of becomes unnoticable. A gradual deregulation of apartments soften the blow and eases the transition from price control to free market.
Another good idea that should be given serious consideration is the City should starting a new program for landlords similar to the SCRIE Program for senior citizens.
The way it would work is every tenant on "paper" pays market rents...if the tenant can't afford it, the City would pay the landlord the difference not by sending the landlord a check like Section 8 but by crediting the landlord's property tax bill account the difference the tenant can't pay.
So as an example: If a tenant's market rent is $1,500 a month and it is determined that the Tenant can only afford to pay $1,000 a month in rent, the City would CREDIT the landlord's property tax account and subtract $6,000 ($500 x 12 months) from his property tax bill.
Therefore, if the landlord's initial property tax bill before deductions is say $60,000 a year, after crediting his account $6,000, his property tax bill is reduced to $54,000 using this single tenant unit example.
The City gives away millions of dollars every year in tax abatements for buildings that undergo capital improvements, land development among other things, why not offer these abatements to landlords so they can charge market rents and in turn the City can charge more in property taxes as former rent stabilized buildings will see a huge increase in rent rolls which will increase property value, which increases property taxes adding a new stream of revenue for the City to collect.
In this scenario, the landlord is kept happy by charging market rents, the tenant is kept happy as he doesn't have to dish out more money for rent and the City is happy as they will have a huge jump in revenue. A win-win for all!!!
SOUND LIKE A PLAN??????
Not a bad idea, only problem is that most properties in the outer boroughs have dirt cheap property tax because the system hasn't been modified in so long, they're still at 1980's crackhead New York assesed values. A few examples:
guess most landlords did just that ,give up... thats why we had the co-op craze and lack of new rentals for decades. i went with my kids to look at apartments in queens and i got to say the choices in rental buildings really stink unless you go to the upper end and unstabilized buildings.! they ended up going up to westchester
Sterpetron...from the bottom of my heart THANK YOU for stating those facts on your post and shutting up these liberal pro-regulation adovates. You made perfect sense and broke down the issue where even a caveman can understand.
If the so-called "poor" can't afford to pay their rent, have them join Section 8 or some other type of program to pay the difference.
The landlord should NOT take a rent discount and come out of his pockets to SUBSIDIZE these "poor" people while at the same time have to pay MARKET EXPENSES. Seventh, please tell me you understand this concept of collecting below market rents yet having no choice but to pay MARKET EXPENSES. The numbers don't add up.
Now if the income requirements to be eligible for Section 8 is too low for some then...that's not the landlord's problem. Go cry to Bloomberg, HUD or whoever sets the threshold. But in NO WAY should the financial burden be placed on the landlord to come up with the difference.
Being "poor", homeless and unable to pay the rent is a CITY or PUBLIC problem. Therefore, you must use PUBLIC money to fix this PUBLIC problem.
You don't single out the real estate industry and use PRIVATE money from landlords to solve a PUBLIC problem. That's just insane and unconstitutional! This isn't communist USSR...this is America where captialism is the FOUNDATION of this country.
Is there price control in health care? NO
Is there price control on foods? NO
Is there price control on electricity and gasoline? NO
Is there price control in apartment rentals...YES!!! HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE????????
You are not reading my posts and acting off emotion. So I will sum up my feelings for you:
- The system should be modified
- Being a landlord with a rent-stabilized building is not profitable now, so do something else
- The system still needs some sort of regulation
Thats all.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Ok so I have read the arguments against rent control and they make perfect sense. The only question I have is do they have rent control in NJ? What about California? Apartments are still through the roof in those places and many others. Not having rent control has not seemed to help apartment costs in places such as this. I'm not sure why it would be any different in NYC. I'm sure there is an explanation but I am just pointing out the only hole I see in the anti rent control argument.
Edit: Both places also have high taxes. Not completely sure about CA but I know for a fact NJ does.
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.
