Supreme Court Refuses NYC Rent Stabilization Case (Accord: for rent, condo)
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.
RS is a bizarre and inefficient response to New York's housing shortage. I don't understand how any liberal can defend it as an issue of social justice. When I was living in a rent stabilized apartment, my low rent was DIRECTLY CAUSING some immigrant family squeezed into a market rate 1 br apartment in Queens to pay significantly more rent than they would otherwise. How is that fair?
Just getting rid of all rent regulation overnight would be a very bad idea though. We don't want a society where the rich occupy all the most desirable housing and the poor have to commute 4 hours a day to crappy service jobs. A start might be lowering the income cap for luxury decontrol, and taking into account assets instead of just income.
From a liberal standpoint, the defending of rent controls is because something needs to be in place, though I would think most people would be happy to see rent controls changed to a much more effective system that better directs itself to those that need it, as well as being a much better system that properly expands to maximizes housing to reduce the deficit between supply and demand....the problem is many conservatives would cry that this is just socialized housing, so in the end we are all stuck with something no one wants to change.
Fine, let's get rid of rent control and landlords can pay more tax? Happy?
The truth is that many conservative people would love to see poor tenants kicked out and half of NY homeless and held hostage to crappy landlords. They attack rent control but no matter what system you put in place, they would attack it. Free market, free market, they cry. While corporations and billionaires take govt handouts and tax abatements.
Nobody wants to walk over a hundred homeless bodies to get to the corner store. If you want to regulate the market THAT IS OK. But the problem I have is when you want to regulate rent increases, but allow free market expenses (heat/water/insurance/taxes/repairs etc)???? You also want to allow people to essentially live in apts for potentially generations, as they are guaranteed renewals and can pass the apt down as if they own it. REALLY?
So forget about "free market free market"...you want regulated..lets do that. REGULATE rent increases, REGULATE expense increases, REGULATE tenancy limits. Right now you are simply regulating income increases..and it doesn't work. At the very least I want a tenancy CAP (like those caps on rent increases you love so much)...why exactly is that a problem?
Fine, let's get rid of rent control and landlords can pay more tax? Happy?
The truth is that many conservative people would love to see poor tenants kicked out and half of NY homeless and held hostage to crappy landlords. They attack rent control but no matter what system you put in place, they would attack it. Free market, free market, they cry. While corporations and billionaires take govt handouts and tax abatements.
poor tenants? why would you assume just because someone has been living in a place for a long time or the building is designated rent stabilized that the tenants are poor?
as i said at the beginning of this post thats crazy logic.
as long as you dont earn more than 250k 2 years in a row income does not matter and net worth dosent even figure in at all. rent stabilization has little to do with anything else except the buildings designation.
Fine, let's get rid of rent control and landlords can pay more tax? Happy?
The truth is that many conservative people would love to see poor tenants kicked out and half of NY homeless and held hostage to crappy landlords. They attack rent control but no matter what system you put in place, they would attack it. Free market, free market, they cry. While corporations and billionaires take govt handouts and tax abatements.
You are so full of it. Your liberal views disgust me. Would you had to be affiliated with the liberal and currupt group "Working Families"?
Answer this question, if the landlord was able to collect market rents via tax abatements and you would still be able to pay below market rent on your apartment, would you be ok with that?
Those denigrating rent controls (always landlords) almost to a man fail to ever mention that there is in place a system guaranteeing every landlord a certain fair rate of return on his equity. All he needs do is PROVE he is mmaking less than that and he gets all the increases he needs. This is a remedy for the IMAGINED situation of controlled rents going up less fast than costs.
Why is it forgotten, never mentioned? Simply because landlords are making profits far above this equitable amount. Of course greed has no upper bounds and if landlords were allowed to double all rents tomorrow, they would STILL bellyache for more and more and more.
if only you knew all the details of which you speak.
kefir sorry to say you really cant prove a thing with the city. it requires documentaion going back 40 years for comparative hardship and for the one you think you just file a form for it doesnt apply to any co-ops or condos that were converted from rentals and still stabilized like ours. that eliminates more than 1/2 the rent stabilized apartments today as most building were converted unless city owned.
There are two types of hardship relief: comparative hardship and alternative hardship. Comparative hardship increases are governed by section 26-511(c)(6) of the Rent Law and section 2522.4(b) of the Rent Code. This type of increase is available if the building owner's average net annual income for the past three years has been less than the building's average net annual income for the three year period spanning 1968 to 1970.1 The increase is capped, however, such that the sum of (a) the increase, and (b) the building's net operating income in the current year does not exceed 8.5 percent of the equity in the property. Moreover, a landlord may collect only a six percent hardship increase annually.
¶7
Under section 26-511(c)(6-a) of the Rent Law and section 2522.4(c) of the Rent Code, an alternative hardship rent increase is available if the building's annual operating expenses exceed 95 percent of the annual gross rental income. The owner must have held title to the property for at least three years prior to an application for this type of increase. Moreover, it is not available to owners of buildings converted to cooperatives and condominiums, and three years must have passed since any prior hardship increase. As with the comparative hardship increase, this adjustment may not exceed six percent annually.
@KK...I have several deregulated apartments in my building which is located in the Bronx. Those units were deregulated because the legal rent went over the then $2000 threshold. Now that those apartments are deregulated, I can charge whatever I want for rent right? I mean, thats what people like you and the rest of the pro-rent stabilization scumbags say. Right? So why is it that NONE of my deregulated apartments are paying more than $1,700 a month (depending on apt size)? What happened? I thought the perk of having a deregulated aka "free market" apartment is so I can charge whatever I wanted to?
According to you pro-rent stabilization low-lives, deregulating an apartment gave me a free license to price gouge and charge whatever I wanted. What happened? Why is it that the most my deregulated apartments go for is $1,700 a month and thats because its a 3 bedroom apartment. My deregulated 1 bedroom apartments go for $1,100. Why aren't I price gouging and charging $3,000+ for an apartment? Heck, I want to make more money so charging $3,000 a month makes sense, right? Please explain that to me. Supposably deregulation of a rent stabilized apartment is so bad, yet I'm charging the same amount in rent that I'm charging in my rent stabilized apartments. What gives? I thought deregulation was evil? What happened? I await your reply.
@KK...I have several deregulated apartments in my building which is located in the Bronx. Those units were deregulated because the legal rent went over the then $2000 threshold. Now that those apartments are deregulated, I can charge whatever I want for rent right? I mean, thats what people like you and the rest of the pro-rent stabilization scumbags say. Right? So why is it that NONE of my deregulated apartments are paying more than $1,700 a month (depending on apt size)? What happened? I thought the perk of having a deregulated aka "free market" apartment is so I can charge whatever I wanted to?
According to you pro-rent stabilization low-lives, deregulating an apartment gave me a free license to price gouge and charge whatever I wanted. What happened? Why is it that the most my deregulated apartments go for is $1,700 a month and thats because its a 3 bedroom apartment. My deregulated 1 bedroom apartments go for $1,100. Why aren't I price gouging and charging $3,000+ for an apartment? Heck, I want to make more money so charging $3,000 a month makes sense, right? Please explain that to me. Supposably deregulation of a rent stabilized apartment is so bad, yet I'm charging the same amount in rent that I'm charging in my rent stabilized apartments. What gives? I thought deregulation was evil? What happened? I await your reply.
Do you speak for all landlords? I never knew you were that powerful in nyc...
Now I am really confused with your complaints, you want to get rid of rent controls because you are losing money, yet you claim you would just charge the same amount anyway, therefore losing no money...so obviously I am to guess you are making a profit and doing just fine, you just don't like the neighbors that the other landlords are more than happy to rent to....maybe you should start demanding the other landlords to stop renting to these people you don't like and then your world will be filled with sunshine and happiness and then you could charged $3000 a month cause you would then be in w desirable neighbor....just cause you currently aren't charging that amount doesn't mean you wouldn't if everyone else around you started charging that much....oh, and I doubt you speak for all landlords.
Dude..whats wrong with you? Can't you read? You're not making any sense. Re-read what I wrote carefully, word for word, read it twice if you have to and get back to me. Pay close attention to the deregulation rent prices. SMH
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.
