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.
Dairy Dad you pay $34 under rent control? That is way too much...I know people paying like $10. I recommend going to your LL and demanding a rent reduction. Better yet, go straight to the papers and make your case known so that politicians will run to your side and you can get the rent relief you deserve.
What I find interesting is that certain people feel entitled to live in the City. If you can't afford it then move to Bklyn, Queens, SI, the Bronx, etc.
The end of rent control/stabilization may actually drive down rents overall. If not enough people can afford to live in the City at regular rental prices then guess what happens. They'll start to come down.
This thread is old but what makes you think Bklyn, Queens, SI (and now most of the Bronx) are anywhere near affordable?? Maybe some parts of Brooklyn that are safe if you take the L train to the last stop and then one or two busses to parts of Flatlands, Manhattan Beach or Sheepshead Bay..
Queens is now the new nouveau riche full of creative class types at least in most of western Queens.. Only affordable apartments (meaning less than $2,000 a month) may be a basement apt. in Corona..
It actually is worse because you not only have a commute that can take anywhere between 30-90 minutes each way (or longer) but you pretty much need to own a car and car insurance outside of Manhattan except for maybe staten island is close to the highest in the country.
This thread is old but what makes you think Bklyn, Queens, SI (and now most of the Bronx) are anywhere near affordable?? Maybe some parts of Brooklyn that are safe if you take the L train to the last stop and then one or two busses to parts of Flatlands, Manhattan Beach or Sheepshead Bay..
Queens is now the new nouveau riche full of creative class types at least in most of western Queens.. Only affordable apartments (meaning less than $2,000 a month) may be a basement apt. in Corona..
It actually is worse because you not only have a commute that can take anywhere between 30-90 minutes each way (or longer) but you pretty much need to own a car and car insurance outside of Manhattan except for maybe staten island is close to the highest in the country.
Repped big time!! 1000 can get a a ROOM in Corona market rate these days.
well you answered your own question , have rents come down for the masses with stabilization? nope
in fact we have a growing population in nyc and no new rental buildings in decades that are not low income, special project or over the rental limit to be stabilized.
thats correct , not one rental building has been put up in any of the 5 borrows since the late 1970's because of stabilization.
we have a shortage of quality rentals in nyc and the city has only itself to blame.
well you answered your own question , have rents come down for the masses with stabilization? nope
in fact we have a growing population in nyc and no new rental buildings in decades that are not low income, special project or over the rental limit to be stabilized.
thats correct , not one rental building has been put up in any of the 5 borrows since the late 1970's because of stabilization.
we have a dshortage of quality rentals in nyc and the city has only itself to blame.
Surely you're joking, plenty of new rentals have been built (often in place of older buildings).
really, show us one that is not a special situation... they are all co-ops ,condos, subsidized low income , special project or not stabilized because they rent for more than the limit..
so far nobody has been able to show us one that is a pure stabilized rental building for the middle class .
i doubt you will find one either . i believe it was crains that did the investigation and found that to be true. those kind of rental buildings ended once landlords were tricked by stabilization. the last pure rentals for middle class were put up in the 1970's
no landlord with a pulse would intentionally put up a stabilized rental unless it was the subsidized low income market he wanted to go after.
when you find one post it so we know that it exists but i doubt you will find one built after the 1970's.
that created a shortgage of nice new rentals for middle class folks. that part of the market was abandoned.
we actually have a rental shortgage in nyc as the population has been growing and no new supply has been added in decades for the middle class. that in itself has been putting upward pressure on rents.
as i said in an earlier post my daughter can actually buy a co-op with a net cost lower than renting.
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-01-2013 at 03:47 AM..
Actually your post was mostly a barrage of snide remarks that had nothing to do with my questions. But, yes, from amongst all those irrelevancies, I was able to weed out your "answers". Your answers consisted of misstatements of fact, plain and simple.
My question: Why is it that the rent control lobby has always blocked any survey on the incomes of rent-regulated tenants?
Your answer: "It is called privacy and is covered by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution."
So you say that requiring the disclosure of income data is unconstitutional. Well, you made this one easy for me.
Is it unconstitutional for a bank to require an applicant for a mortgage to disclose income data?
Is it unconstitutional for a college to require an applicant for a needs-based scholarship to disclose income data?
Is it unconstitutional for the state to require a wealthy rent-stabilized tenant whose is suspected of having an income above the allowed maximum to disclose income data?
The answer is of course not. It most definitely is constitutional. What has been blocking a survey of incomes of regulated tenants is not the Constitution. It has been the political power of the rent control lobby. Can we infer that the lobby has something to hide?
My question: Why do you think the rent-control lobby moved hell and high water to jack up the max income level to $200,000?
Your answer: "Because over that amount is considered rich.
You apparently don't see the dichotomy between you're saying "all those RICH people have cheap apartments" and a $200,000 income limit to deregulate their apartment? Would you like "rich" to be defined as $50,000 in New York?"
I wish that my question and your answer could be publicized to the hilt. I wish that every tax payer in this city and state could be made aware that their hard-earned money is going to support a huge, monstrous government bureaucracy to benefit people with an income of 200 grand, or anything even close to it. Why? So they can live in subsidized apartments in Manhattan or wherever while the rest of us have to pay our own way.
(The lobby, by the way, originally pushed for a quarter million. The 200,000 was a concession.)
Look, we'll never agree. I can see from your posts that your thinking on this subject is determined by a very rigid socio-economic ideology. The day when enlightened legislators free themselves from the political chains of the ideologists and make decisions based on the common sense of housing economics is the day when the people of NYC will see an increase of vacant apartments, more choice, lower rents, and better housing conditions. And it will be a day that the tax payers and most tenants will celebrate.
Well thought out remarks and some convincing points. However, you don't recognize that economoist and mathematicians consider the free market not to be equitable at least in the short-term - great inequalities arise once you get beyond a transaction between two parties due to some mathematical principles. Check any survey books on mathematics and economic modeling.
I do agree rent-stabilization and rent-control causes people to hold onto apartments and impact return on landlord's investment and upkeep of properties. But questions I would ask are:
1) Are properties with a high percentage of rent stabilize/control units in poorer shape than those completely market priced
2) What is the income distribution of tenants in rent-stabilized apartments? How about rent-control?
3) What is a fair percentage of net income should be spent on housing?
4) What about the income distribution of those living in coops and condos?
These questions point to the fact the answers cannot be found in a thread discussion without reference to quality research.
As one who has lived in a rent-stabilized apartment and never making more than 45K, I have been fortunate as I underwent 2 periods of long-term unemployment which NY State pays $407 before taxes are taken out. For those of you who automatically demonize rent stabilization, I wonder should I have, for the sake of "free market", given up my apartment when I was working and then when unemployed risk depletion of my savings on a market rate apartment, possibly put myself at greater risk for homelessness? I do exaggerate somewhat but for some people in some professions, rent-stabilization is a godsend that enables them to contribute to the betterment of NYC. So, let's ease up on demonizing rent stabilization/control and provide some sound data and research to be well-informed. Maybe there is a far better alternative to rent-stabilization /control as I do realize it creates some unwelcome distortions in the housing market just as it curtails unwelcome distrotions caused by a more free market approach to housing.
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.
?
.
