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.
No the problem is operating expenses are increasing higher than the % the RGB issues yearly.
Not to mention that Landlords are force to suck it up and pay the difference below market tenants pays.
If someone can't afford the rent...as the City for a hand-out to help you pay the rent, not the landlord. Why should it be ok for a landlord to subsidize your rent out of his own pocket? It doesn't make sense.
That's like me saying you should take a pay cut to contribute to your veteran co-worker's pension. Wouldn't you feel singled out?
So sell the building.....why is that so hard to grasp.
Gas prices are going up...so I drive less. I adapt.
You landlords expect for nothing to fluctuate.
If its not a lucrative business anymore, wake up and smell the coffee.
That's like me staying in a dead-end job. Why bother.
Essentially, thats what you have now. Stop lying to yourselves and move on.
You'll thank me for it.
Its not about rising expenses, what determines it is if the landlord is in the black at the end of the year.
No need to sugarcoat things, we're all adults here.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Is this another "I'm mad because I couldnt get cheap housing" thread?
Also, majority of the people living in rent stabilized apartment are elderly. Shame on everyone wanting to put poor granny on the street...
granny may be old but ill bet she is far from poor lol.. you should see some of the incomes of some of the folks in the building we live in here in queens. . they run quite high but they have been in the building quite a long time.
same thing applys to those living in the apartments we own by central park. know why we live in queens and not in those apartments over looking central park? because we cant afford to live in that area and we own them. just the maintaince on the apartments which are co-op and the cost of living in that area would blow us out of the water. yet our tenants lived there decades until they moved or were bought out by us and everyone paid more than the maintance fees we were paying on the apartments as owners so that gives you an idea of some the incomes of folks in these apartments.
never confuse elderly with poor. ..
Last edited by mathjak107; 06-21-2011 at 03:10 AM..
Easy, you have a 1% vacancy rate in the city, partially due to the fact that in the last 40 years very little housing stock has been built, you still have far more demand than supply.
Until this grotesque system is eliminated, developers will not finance large-scale development that would be sufficient to start to hold down the market price increases. That will take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more units built.
Mind you, the reason the prices of market rentals are so high is they need to make up for the badly reduced revenue of the controlled / stabilized apartments.
Were those 1 million apartments completely de-controlled / de-stabilized and tossed onto the market, the top prices would come down, and the bottom end would most certainly rise, meeting somewhere in between.
Rent stabilization applies to old buildings not new construction, so this point makes no sense.
So sell the building.....why is that so hard to grasp.
Gas prices are going up...so I drive less. I adapt.
You landlords expect for nothing to fluctuate.
If its not a lucrative business anymore, wake up and smell the coffee.
That's like me staying in a dead-end job. Why bother.
Essentially, thats what you have now. Stop lying to yourselves and move on.
You'll thank me for it.
Its not about rising expenses, what determines it is if the landlord is in the black at the end of the year.
No need to sugarcoat things, we're all adults here.
So that's your answer? Sell the building? Ha! If all rent stabilized landlords sold their buildings, who's going to own them? The City right? For what purpose?
So the city can then turn the buildings into massive housing projects and rent to street low-lives, thugs, domestic violence residents with drama, drug addicts, homeless people with issues, AIDS patients via drug use who've had a rough upbringing to further blight NYC communities where there is still a glimmer of hope to improve these communities?
If rent stabilized landlords were to sell their buildings...that's exactly what will happen. The City takes over and turns it into a ghetto residential building full of destitutes and the City will sugarcoat it calling it "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" to make it appear they're improving the community....haha, yeah right. That's all a front!
Rent stabilization applies to old buildings not new construction, so this point makes no sense.
I dont believe thats correct, where do you see that ?
as far as i know buildings built after 1974 can opt out of section 8 housing after 20 years but thats it..
there is no new construction of rental buildings since the 1970's unless low income or luxury in nyc.only co-op or condo
So sell the building.....why is that so hard to grasp.
Gas prices are going up...so I drive less. I adapt.
You landlords expect for nothing to fluctuate.
If its not a lucrative business anymore, wake up and smell the coffee.
That's like me staying in a dead-end job. Why bother.
Essentially, thats what you have now. Stop lying to yourselves and move on.
You'll thank me for it.
Its not about rising expenses, what determines it is if the landlord is in the black at the end of the year.
No need to sugarcoat things, we're all adults here.
And you're absolutely right....being a landlord is a BUSINESS and rightfully so. Why should it be anything else?
The more money my BUSINESS makes, the BETTER PRODUCT I can give tenants. The nicer the apartment looks, the better maintained the buildings is, all because I have ENOUGH CAPITAL in RESERVE to provide such services.
However, Rent Stabilization DOES NOT allow landlords to build up CAPITAL RESERVES via price control. Many RS buildings are in the RED and have to sell or are barely making a profit. So what do landlords do? You cut back in expenses...aka DEFFERED MAINTENANCE!
And then you wonder why the majority of Rent Stabilized buildings look like crap and are falling apart. Hmmmmmm, think about it?
In a nutshell...Rent Stabilization creates and breeds Slumlords. Point blank. Without $$$$$$ you can't expect to have "nice" things.
Proof is in the pudding. Compare the QUALITY of a NON-Rent Stabilized building to a Rent Stabilized building....the difference is like night and day.
Thats what happens when the City tries to control rent prices. And ultimately the TENANTS SUFFER. Thats why I say RS does a disservice to tenants and the community. But people like you don't seem to understand.
Without tenants, the landlord business would NOT exist. If the CITY is going to restrict my income via rents then I'm going to restrict the QUALITY OF LIFE and LIVING CONDITIONS of rent stabilized tenants. For every cause there's an effect!
Being a landlord in NYC doesn't mean that you're also a CHARITY forced to subsidize your tenants. If a tenant can't truly afford their rent....go ask the CITY for a HAND-OUT like section 8 and various other entitlement programs. Don't dig in my pockets as ask me to pay half your rent. It's not my job as a private business owner to support you, thats the City's job. Dig in their pockets, not mine!
Papa/ConservativeBX/VictorBX/ashely, welcome back! There are 2 sides to this story: The answer cannot be "well if rents are too low and you can't make it work sell the building/walk away." Who will buy it? We know how that story ends....1970s burn burn burn.
We also cannot simply stop rent control/stabilization because there are too many building/people involved. The litigation alone would take a decade to resolve. It is being phased out as units become deregulated, however it is at a snails pace and will not end in any real sense until maybe my grandkids are renting apts.
I think rent stabilization USED to have a valid purpose, but as with most things in this city, it has become nothing more than a political tool to extract votes..and therein lies the problem. It is no longer about what is best for the city and residents, but a tool to play politics...and that's the reality.
In the larger picture, I think the price controls hurt the city, hurt growth, and hurt communities. Whereas there was a time when communities can grow and change organically, because of heavy regulations causing limited supply, too many communities remain stagnant. It isn't good for the residents, and it isn't good for NYC.
And to be fair, I think the Landlords who hurt the most are the small-time owners who get the middle class squeeze...stangant rents and escalating expenses.
So you're ok with some people paying $500 in rent while the next man pays double for the same identical apartment?
How would you feel paying market rent or close to market rent while you're downstairs neighbor pays half what you pay? As a renter, wouldn't that upset you?
It's not an inverse relationship. Do you think the LL will lower your rent if he can raise the stabilized tenant's rent? Keep dreaming.
All you are doing is mouthing the landlords point of view. Nothing more then a shill for the Man.
It's not an inverse relationship. Do you think the LL will lower your rent if he can raise the stabilized tenant's rent? Keep dreaming.
All you are doing is mouthing the landlords point of view. Nothing more then a shill for the Man.
One thing has nothing to do with another.
This has everything to do with the government extending preferential treatment to certain individuals over others. Furthermore, the party that has been extended this treatment has not been wronged in any way. This is government sanctioned discrimination. Plain and simple.
Does that ring a bell?
This is absurd on its face.
There are many places I'd live to live but simply can't afford. Do you want to subsidize me?
People yell about the crooks and corruption on wall street and in Washington but it's no different on main street. Everyone wants to "get theirs" and it doesn't matter on whose dime.
Last edited by wawaweewa; 06-21-2011 at 09:30 AM..
I dont believe thats correct, where do you see that ?
as far as i know buildings built after 1974 can opt out of section 8 housing after 20 years but thats it..
there is no new construction of rental buildings since the 1970's unless low income or luxury in nyc.only co-op or condo
If anyone knows of any newer rentals put up since the 1970's that arent subsidized low income or luxury, post what you found because im not aware of any if there are.
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.
