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.
I never said the system was perfect...I'm just against its abolishment. I believe that it can be tweaked to suit the financial concerns of LLs while provide affordable rents for tenants.
What you describe is economically impossible. It is against the rules of economics. Any type of control system will inherently favor one side or the other.
I would prefer to get rid of the system in its entirety. We can have a watchdog group..but why do we need everything else? But with the small changes I recommended, I think keeping the system would be fine.
When it gives wealthy people like Faye Dunaway an apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan for $1,048.72, it shows what a joke it is and how it impedes the availability of housing in NYC because people hang onto apartments way longer than they actually need them because of greed.
Ms. Dunaway, a Florida native, spoke with the inflection of a trained actor and the imperiousness of a seasoned celebrity as she staunchly denied that the landlord of the Upper East Side apartment that she began renting in 1995 had ordered her to leave.
When it comes to rent control and rent stabilization, it looks more and more like it is really protecting upper middle class or wealthy and politically connected renters and just helping everyone else as a byproduct of that goal.
I mean, really, look at the last "battle" and the numbers:
Quote:
The agreement, expected to come as soon as today, will raise the rental threshold under which apartments can be decontrolled to about $2,500 a month -- up from $2,000 -- and boost the maximum annual income for tenants in regulated apartments from $175,000 to about $200,000, a source familiar with the negotiations said.
i dont know why you keep insisting on making this a system based on need.
so you think all those stabilized apartments that are at market rate should only have tenants of lower income or net worth? oooooh im sure landlords would just love that system.... the more capable of paying the rent the more out of the ball park the landlords choice of tenants should be..... lovely system.
as a landlord i can tell you i would rather have a wealthier person paying less than market rate that i could count on if they lost their job than someone living hand to mouth or of less financial stability paying less than market rate if i had to choose...... last thing i want is a below market rate tenant and to have to worry about job loss,illness and divorce too.
if the city is sticking me with someone for life and the city is allowing them to pay les than market then i want the wealthiest tenant you can find me.
your trying to create a system with your own views that wont work and wasnt intended to work in that manner.
Last edited by mathjak107; 12-21-2011 at 02:26 PM..
^^^
I am not trying to design my own rent control/rent stabilization program. I think the whole thing is outdated. I am on the side of no system and letting the market take care of the price of rents instead of artificially controlling them.
If rents have to be artificially controlled, then it should only be for people who don't have a lot of money. This system does not address that.
All I am trying to say is that the system is CRAZY!!! It gives cheap rent to those who don't even need it!
The rent gouging landlords of the 1940s are long dead, but this system staggers on into the 21st century.
now that i agree with. trying to fill stabilized apartments with tenants who needed them and used net worth as a criteria would be a one two punch to a landlord. to bless him with a tenant for life ,leave him with less than market rent from old time tenants and then giving him only low to moderate net worth tenants to fill those apartments so he can now worry about even getting the rent would be just a terrible thing to do to a landlord.
most landlords today want at to see 40x the monthly rent as income and even then i want to see money in the bank.
Last edited by mathjak107; 12-21-2011 at 04:09 PM..
most landlords today want at to see 40x the monthly rent as income and even then i want to see money in the bank.
40x the rent is what I ask from prospective tenants and my building is not in Manahattan but in the Bronx. Hopefully the 40x rule catches on with other Bronx landlords thus weeding out the deadbeats and low lives.
I believe that it can be tweaked to suit the financial concerns of LLs
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy
I would prefer to get rid of the system in its entirety. We can have a watchdog group..but why do we need everything else? But with the small changes I recommended, I think keeping the system would be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilltopjay
So what do you propose? You can't just say RS can stay but can be tweaked without offering HOW it should be tweaked. In my opinion, NYC in general would be a better city without Rent Stabilization for numerous reasons previously explained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but
^^^
I am not trying to design my own rent control/rent stabilization program. I think the whole thing is outdated. I am on the side of no system and letting the market take care of the price of rents instead of artificially controlling them.
All of these comments recommending "tweaking" or improving, and certainly abolishing, the rent stabilization system (as screwed up as it is) are PURE FANTASY. It is currently politically impossible to make any changes which would improve the system. This is because the very loud, threatening, and powerful low-rent control lobby has a stranglehold on the politicians. There is NOT one NYC state legislator who would dare make any of the justified criticisms of the system that have been voiced on this thread. Doing so would be political suicide. The Lobby would immediately target that politician and he or she would not survive the next Democratic primary.
And it's even worse than that. If there are any changes made, it will be changes that will make the system even tighter, more burdensome, bring even more of the wealthy into the system, and be even more destructive to the quality and quantity of housing. I say this because in next year's election the leftist Dems have to flip just one seat in the State Senate. If they do that they will have TOTAL dominence over Albany. The Lobby will be able to dictate whatever legislation it wants. And it will be extreme.
The only way to improve the system is to change the political balance. In other words, to wake up the general population of the city and state to the very negative effects the system has on them. Post #100 explains how it wallops them on taxes, and post #34 presents abundant documentation of is destructive effects on housing and how it hurts market-rent tenants. In addition to the many other points made on this thread regarding the senselessness of so much of the rent stabilization system.
The way pro-housing people were able to defeat rent control in Massachusetts was to put the question of rent regs on the state ballot as a referendum. This took it out of the hands of the politicians and into the hands of the people. More importantly, as a ballot item, it opened up the issue to public debate. In other words, the light of day was shed on the pros and cons. And the cons clearly won the vote.
I am almost certain that the same result would happen in New York. Of course the low-rent lobby would be as loud and belligerent as ever in opposing a referendum and debate. I don't know the mechanics of accomplishing this (maybe signatures?). Anybody?
The way pro-housing people were able to defeat rent control in Massachusetts was to put the question of rent regs on the state ballot as a referendum. This took it out of the hands of the politicians and into the hands of the people. More importantly, as a ballot item, it opened up the issue to public debate. In other words, the light of day was shed on the pros and cons. And the cons clearly won the vote.
I am almost certain that the same result would happen in New York. Of course the low-rent lobby would be as loud and belligerent as ever in opposing a referendum and debate. I don't know the mechanics of accomplishing this (maybe signatures?). Anybody?
If put in the hands of the people it would lose, unfortunately only involving, probably, maintaining things as they are.
The system needs to be entirely re-vamped, and different and even stricter controls put into place, ones that close (and anticipate) loopholes on BOTH landlord and tenant sides. The system is defunct because it increasingly fails to address actual, real conditions in our current culture.
The single, heroic landlord is a myth. I actually know more than a few but I also understand that generally speaking, they are very few and far-between. If a resident landlord was an actuality instead of an exception, there would be no need of rent regulations. In fact, however, in our current climate, everything under the sun exists only as a commodity for predatory speculation and investment. Locally, this fact is most obviously exemplified in real estate. This tendency is not compatible with a single landlord system. Indeed, it works against that in every way.
Nor is this tendency checked by any sort of notion of a common good. People who subscribe to the "invisible hand," "free market" nonsense are truly on the wrong path. I do believe that some people, hard to know how many, actually believe these things - a telling statement about the educational system in America, which discourages actual critical thinking. Those ideas were developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. They have little value now, just lots of destructive power in the sense that they obscure the real issues.
Given the demise of any sort of common values and, more importantly, the fact that most people are incapable of seeing anything beyond ME - the "truth" stops with ME, I am the only person who actually exists, and similar - strong rules and regulations are needed for just about everything. As an aside, another thread on subway behavior is about precisely this state of things. People are a nuisance in the public sphere because most of them have no idea that anything or anyone exists beyond themselves, ME-ME-ME. They are almost blameless because they have no idea. Everyone else has been blasted away by the earphones, or translated into a virtual info-byte or "text message," no real existence.
It is significant here that the psychiatric professionals have removed narcissistic personality disorder from their scientific listings of disorders. Why ? Not because it does not exist, but because it is so prevalent that it no longer qualifies as a disorder. It is the default basic subject in current American culture.
This is not a brilliant insight but involves only a firm grasp of the obvious.
What you describe is economically impossible. It is against the rules of economics. Any type of control system will inherently favor one side or the other.
Precisely why the old models of interpretation - including economic ones, left, right, what have you - are currently defunct.
Although, it is not so much that they "favor" one side or another. It is the fact that it is impossible to address every single case and particular. Consider the death penalty. Currently, no death penalty means that some who should be executed, removed from society, will not be. At the same time, however, we avoid executing innocent people when mistakes are made.
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.
Who are these laws REALLY protecting these days?
