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 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.
new york city is on the verge of seeing about 1/2 its stabilized apartments go bye bye over the next few years.
most non city owned rentals were taken co-op decades ago. once those aging origonal tenants die or relocate game is over . the apartments are no longer stabilized.
for decades our middle aged tenants had no interest in taking lease buyouts. the last 7 years saw 88% of them take the buyout now and leave.
it took a long time but the co-op conversions are finally becoming the light at the end of the tunnel as aging baby boomers free them up and they are no longer stabilized.
in all of bay terrace with all these building you see, only 2 stayed pure rental , everything else is co-op or condo.
our other apartment is in kew gardens and that area is the same story, almost all were co-op conversions.
new york city is on the verge of seeing about 1/2 its stabilized apartments go bye bye over the next few years.
most non city owned rentals were taken co-op decades ago. once those aging origonal tenants die or relocate game is over . the apartments are no longer stabilized.
for decades our middle aged tenants had no interest in taking lease buyouts. the last 7 years saw 88% of them take the buyout now and leave.
it took a long time but the co-op conversions are finally becoming the light at the end of the tunnel as aging baby boomers free them up and they are no longer stabilized.
in all of bay terrace with all these building you see, only 2 stayed pure rental , everything else is co-op or condo.
our other apartment is in kew gardens and that area is the same story, almost all were co-op conversions.
The majority of apartment buildings in Jackson Heights also went co op. Because of this, the remaining rents for just an one bedroom is about 1800 per month, maybe 2000 for a really nice one bedroom. I'm sure if you count since the 1990s the city has already lost a big chunk of its rent stabilized apartments. But now yes, with boomers retiring (and many retirees who were renters relocate to other places) its obvious will have huge implications for the real estate market as the city loses half of them in the next few years.
it was bound to happen at some point but the city brought this on themselves by forcing landlords to seek ways out of being stabilized.
it went along transparent for the city until the boomers wanted to retire. needing money to retire on many are accepting those buyouts they always had no interest in. .
it was bound to happen at some point but the city brought this on themselves by forcing landlords to seek ways out of being stabilized.
it went along transparent for the city until the boomers wanted to retire. needing money to retire on many are accepting those buyouts they always had no interest in. .
Also, there are a number of people who upon retirement can't even afford their rent stabilized apartments. If they only source of income after retirement is social security, that just isn't enough money to sustain one's self in NYC. People like this often move to some small town, where their social security is enough. So again, units that are just going to no longer be rent stabilized.
But by locking apartments off the market by having them rent stabilized or rent controled (or public housing) all the city government did was increase the rent on everyone else, and insure that the subsidized housing be inferior (because of it being way below market costs). The situation is ending now.
No question rent stabilization kept the creation of nice new renovated apartments from being built.
The rent situation as far as rents being higher or lower is hard to guess at.
When boston finally did away with it rents rose. But they rose because apartments were being renovated and updated after decades of neglect.
New cost money so although rents went up work permits soared and what you got was a much nicer apartment for not much more money.
Friend if mine owns a couple of buildings in Cambridge, which also had rent control until about 10 or 15 years ago.When Cambridge became decontrolled ( after Boston) the rents doubled in a few years and have since doubled again and again.Apartments my friend got only 450/mo for in 1998 are 2,400/mo now.Basically rents skyrocketed all around,in the controlled apartments and also in the apartments that never were controlled.
Anyone who thinks rents will go down on non controlled units when stabilization/control is gone in NYC is crazy.All rents in NYC( and Boston and Cambridge and SF) will keep going up and up and up as long as they remain the most popular places for Americans and Europeans to live.
When I grew up in Cambridge the city was just one big slum except for the Harvard campus.I think it has the highest rents in the country now.
Friend if mine owns a couple of buildings in Cambridge, which also had rent control until about 10 or 15 years ago.When Cambridge became decontrolled ( after Boston) the rents doubled in a few years and have since doubled again and again.Apartments my friend got only 450/mo for in 1998 are 2,400/mo now.Basically rents skyrocketed all around,in the controlled apartments and also in the apartments that never were controlled.
Anyone who thinks rents will go down on non controlled units when stabilization/control is gone in NYC is crazy.All rents in NYC( and Boston and Cambridge and SF) will keep going up and up and up as long as they remain the most popular places for Americans and Europeans to live.
When I grew up in Cambridge the city was just one big slum except for the Harvard campus.I think it has the highest rents in the country now.
Look at the gentrification and improvements in areas of our own city.
Have you priced an apartment in harlem,red hook,lic lately?
We have stabilization but that is not going to stop the rise in rents .like i said new cost money.
No one in their wildest dreams expected the prices to be what they are in harlem.
Like new york boston had many many apartments already at market value when stabilization ended. The ones below market exploded upward.
What we don't know are rents overall now lower than they may have been on the ones that were already at market since more renovated supply of the under market stuff has joined the ranks.
2400.00 sounds right for living in a nice big city. Heck we can pay that right here in bayside for a two bedroom place.
That is a question we just do not know the answer to since you can not measure what did not happen.
Last edited by mathjak107; 06-23-2013 at 06:39 PM..
Friend if mine owns a couple of buildings in Cambridge, which also had rent control until about 10 or 15 years ago.When Cambridge became decontrolled ( after Boston) the rents doubled in a few years and have since doubled again and again.Apartments my friend got only 450/mo for in 1998 are 2,400/mo now.Basically rents skyrocketed all around,in the controlled apartments and also in the apartments that never were controlled.
Anyone who thinks rents will go down on non controlled units when stabilization/control is gone in NYC is crazy.All rents in NYC( and Boston and Cambridge and SF) will keep going up and up and up as long as they remain the most popular places for Americans and Europeans to live.
When I grew up in Cambridge the city was just one big slum except for the Harvard campus.I think it has the highest rents in the country now.
Yes, but there's a reason why rents went up after Cambridge was decontrolled. Harvard is in Cambridge, which has a 40 BILLION endowment! The rents were artificially low, because rents next to a major wealthy university tend to be comparatively high.
When rents were kept artificially low, landlords couldn't upgrade properties, so yes, the area was a slum as people with money tend to want nicer places and amenities. So the poorer people just moved further away from the Harvard area.
NYC has had various forms of subsidized housing. Not just rent controlled and rent stabilization, you have the housing projects themselves plus units that are paid for by whatever welfare program. If all those units were put on the market, prices would definitely drop, because you'd have massive vacancies in certain parts of town. Take Spanish Harlem. Market rate, its an expensive place these days. But there are a lot of people in NYCHA developments there. Ditto for the Lower East Side. Yes, if NYCHA were privatized, rents would go up, but by flooding the market with so many new units, things would go down for those paying market rate. Rents are all supply and demand and are based on what's available, except with government programs artificially freeze availability.
Yes, but there's a reason why rents went up after Cambridge was decontrolled. Harvard is in Cambridge, which has a 40 BILLION endowment! The rents were artificially low, because rents next to a major wealthy university tend to be comparatively high.
Not really.Yale has just as big an endowment as Harvard and virtually all of New Haven is still a slum.And it is a much,much smaller city.
The rents in Cambridge went up dramatically because it became a place where people want to live and the controls went off.Supply and demand.Nobody wants to live in New Haven....not even the people associated with Yale.
When I first moved to NYC to go to college,the entire area around Columbia was one of the worst neighborhoods in NYC.Columbia's presence and endowment did nothing to boost the rents in the UWS and Morningside Heights.Rents around there to this day are still not "comparatively high" at all.
Last edited by bluedog2; 06-23-2013 at 07:08 PM..
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.
