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 cpi is a price index and while certain things are linked to it the cpi is NOT A COST OF LIVING INDEX .
a cost of living index uses the price index as part of its calculation.
My neighbor is single ,lives in a rent stabilized apartment and does not drive.
Their cost of living is very different then a family of 4 with kids in college and everyone covered on health insurance they are paying for.
The cpi is only a measure of price changes. You may not utilize any of the major items that had big jumps.
That is why the cpi is not a cost of living measure.
As workers the only thing that matters is our personal cost of living index and the income amounts we earn.
As landlords we earn our living by investing in properties.
The same as everyone here wants to be paid a wage that at least keeps up with our cost of living (not cpi) so do landlords.
Some of us can get those increases and some can't but we all want to earn at whatever we do for a living as much as the market will allow.
There is not a person here who needs to earn a living that would not want to earn more for what they do and if thats greed then everyone of us is guilty.
Last edited by mathjak107; 06-21-2013 at 03:33 PM..
The cpi is a price index and while certain things are linked to it the cpi is NOT A COST OF LIVING INDEX .
a cost of living index uses the price index as part of its calculation.
My neighbor is single ,lives in a rent stabilized apartment and does not drive.
Their cost of living is very different then a family of 4 with kids in college and everyone covered on health insurance they are paying for.
The cpi is only a measure of price changes. You may not utilize any of the major items that had big jumps.
That is why the cpi is not a cost of living measure.
As workers the only thing that matters is our personal cost of living index and the income amounts we earn.
As landlords we earn our living by investing in properties.
The same as everyone here wants to be paid a wage that at least keeps up with our cost of living (not cpi) so do landlords.
Some of us can get those increases and some can't but we all want to earn at whatever we do for a living as much as the market will allow.
There is not a person here who needs to earn a living that would not want to earn more for what they do and if thats greed then everyone of us is guilty.
KK...as a landlord, I can honestly tell you that the rent increase percentages are applied to the LONG TIME tenants that pay DIRT CHEAP rent.
Both my rent stabilized tenants who already pay FAIR market rent for their apartments despite being RS as well as my DEREGULATED free market tenants will NOT be affected by this year's or any year's rent increase percentages because my market rent RS tenants to begin with already have a preferential rent (discounted rent). Meaning that the legal regulated rent for the apartment is above and beyond the fair market rent for the area. In such a case, the increase percentages are just tacked on to the higher legal regulated rent which I don't charge anyways.
The idea is to keep my building at high occupancy. If I go around charging and marketing above market rents, NO ONE WILL RENT FROM ME. IF no one rents from me, I go out of business. See how that works KK? I'm at the mercy of the MARKET. The MARKET tell me what to charge for rent unlike RS where rents are artificial based on a "vote". That has adverse effects on the real estate apartment rentals such as poor maintenance, higher rents, lesser quality of tenants, among other things.
I know this doesn't do you immediate good, but in a lot of cases when the parents die or retire and move away, landlords can then totally renovate the apartment and charge much more for it. Through a variety of means, a lot of rent stabilized places are slowly but surely losing said status. Also, I've known people to get caught doing illegal sublets, and the person whose name is on the lease of the rc or rs is found to live all year out of New York, but they rent out the apartment at market rates to whoever and make a big profit.
This is a big scam ESPECIALLY in Manhattan, where there's a huge gap in prices between rc and rs, and market rate apartments. A lot of people with rs or rc apartment either rent out rooms or even the whole place at market rates, make a big profit, and as the landlord sees none of this money, it isn't invested in the building. Of course I cannot say the landlord is always right or good, but neither is the tenant. In an ideal world, if everyone was honest, perhaps rs and rc would be great ideas. But there are too many dishonest people. Most of the programs and housing in NYC that was supposed to help poor working class people has been taken over by SCAMSTERS.
Not just rent out apartments to boarders, I've known gay people in rent stabilized apartments to make a living throwing sex parties (until their landlords finally got rid of them as all the other tenants complained about "noises" and people coming in and out all hours.
I know this doesn't do you immediate good, but in a lot of cases when the parents die or retire and move away, landlords can then totally renovate the apartment and charge much more for it. Through a variety of means, a lot of rent stabilized places are slowly but surely losing said status. Also, I've known people to get caught doing illegal sublets, and the person whose name is on the lease of the rc or rs is found to live all year out of New York, but they rent out the apartment at market rates to whoever and make a big profit.
This is a big scam ESPECIALLY in Manhattan, where there's a huge gap in prices between rc and rs, and market rate apartments. A lot of people with rs or rc apartment either rent out rooms or even the whole place at market rates, make a big profit, and as the landlord sees none of this money, it isn't invested in the building. Of course I cannot say the landlord is always right or good, but neither is the tenant. In an ideal world, if everyone was honest, perhaps rs and rc would be great ideas. But there are too many dishonest people. Most of the programs and housing in NYC that was supposed to help poor working class people has been taken over by SCAMSTERS.
Not just rent out apartments to boarders, I've known gay people in rent stabilized apartments to make a living throwing sex parties (until their landlords finally got rid of them as all the other tenants complained about "noises" and people coming in and out all hours.
I agree. If tenant advocates want to keep RS around, it should be income based. Prove to us and the city via tax returns that you deserve to pay $500 a month in rent because you are poor. Otherwise the tenant should be paying fair market rent for their apartment.
I agree. If tenant advocates want to keep RS around, it should be income based. Prove to us and the city via tax returns that you deserve to pay $500 a month in rent because you are poor. Otherwise the tenant should be paying fair market rent for their apartment.
or we just let the poor live in poor neighborhoods, and those who work hard for a living live in nicer neighborhoods- and leave the government out of it.
If it wants to give handouts in the form of cash or section 8, let them do it- people can choose to spend that on their homes if they want to.
Eh, I'm a rent stabilized tenant and it's great and all, but I don't really see how it's justified. If high rents can be commanded in an area, and you can't afford them, you do what the rest of the country does and you move.
I mean I make low six figures, and this means I'll get about a $45 a month increase, it's literally one extra hour of overtime for me. I can see how (very) low income people could be hurt by this, but do I really need protection?
the problem is rent stabilizartion is not based on need , it is really only based on the fact someone lived in an apartment during the years rents were political pawns so their rents fell below market..
you always hear about the poor grandmother living on social security with no money but the reality is many are normal to high range net worth people and it is only about time spent in the apartment thing.
in the building where we live in bay terrace it is filled with people who can buy and sell most of us here.
we also own rentals in the city which are still rent stabilized co-ops and have tenants worth far more than i am worth. they just hide their income well so as not to go over the limit and they have huge net worths which do not count at all.
the building we own apartments in that contain rent stabilized tenants are filled with some of the wealthies people in nyc.
in fact we own the apartments and can't afford to live there by central park.
some are tenants and others own their apartments since it is a co-op but just living in that area is outragiously expensive..
to give you an idea of the wealth in that building our partner in the 200 central park south building bernard spitzer sold one of his holdings where a tenant took a buyout. he sold that apartment to another woman who already owned an apartment in the building for the tidy sum of 3.5 million bucks.
that is now her 2nd apartment .
that gives you an idea of what net worths are in many rent stabilized buildings.
Questions for landlords........
1. Isn't it true that in exchange for rent control, there is a tax abatement, and isn't there an abatement period? Doesn't a landlord have the right to go market rate at the end of the abatement period?
2. Were folk not aware of existing policies when they bought or inherited the building, or became a landlord?
2. Can one totally trust a truly free market?
Questions for tenants........
1. Should a high-income tenant be eligible for rent control or rent stabilization, and live in them forever?
2. What do you think about rent control or rent stabilization being based on income, or need?
3. When a tax abatement period ends, giving a landlord the opportunity to go market rate, doesn't that give one the opportunity to freely negotiate with the landlord on rent?
our building got a 10 year tax abatement decades ago but are stil rent stabilized today. ha ha ha.
yep that was the deal and taxes were nothing in those days as a percentage of rent role.
to my knowledge no , you do not become de-stabilized once it ends.
when buildings went rent stabilized the landlords were told it was only to prevent gouging and it would be transparent to them.
if they didn't go along the tax structure of the building would be changed and you would end up being penalized .
no landlord expected the rents off in the future to become political pawns to win votes and held artificially low for a long long time.
even those who bought stabilized buildings after the fact bought them on rent roles less expenses. they looked fine. but years later artifically held low rates and rising expenses cut profiability big time on building investments.
what do i think about them being based on need? i think if the government wants to subsidize those in need than let them pay a landlord the difference or build their own subsidized housing.
or better yet , tell everyone who works for a living they can not earn a fair market wage because they have to give part of their income to a mandated charity.
as landlords this is our income, this is what we do for a living . it is no different than what you do, you want to be compensated the best you can for what you do.
only difference is you get paid what the markets allow or you are free to look elsewhere, landlords are given new additions to their family they are stuck with forever .
the end result is not one rental building has been put up since the 1970's anywhere in the 5 boros's that i am aware of.
only special situation,subsidized, luxury or low income has been built.
Last edited by mathjak107; 06-22-2013 at 03:42 AM..
Eh, I'm a rent stabilized tenant and it's great and all, but I don't really see how it's justified. If high rents can be commanded in an area, and you can't afford them, you do what the rest of the country does and you move.
I mean I make low six figures, and this means I'll get about a $45 a month increase, it's literally one extra hour of overtime for me. I can see how (very) low income people could be hurt by this, but do I really need protection?
i agree , the whole rent stabilization thing is one big crock based on absurd parameters.. the funny thing is very very few today really even have below market rents in stabilized buildings unless they were tenants during those golden years decades ago.
my wife has been in our apartment for 30 years.
rents for newbees pretty much have been close to market or at market for the last decade, maybe more,.
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.
