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.
Thats a good analogy. They took those jobs themselves back in the day just like we bought our investments with their eyes wide open.
But then in the middle of the game the rules changed. What was a fair profit margin was screwed with over the years until it evaporated.
Now that they fell behind even though the increases are more realistic now the long time tenants fell so far behind you still can not get a fair market income.
I would still give those rs tenants with frozen salarys a raise, I would just make sure it never brought them up to a fair market waqe.
Very true. In fact, I have a long time Irish RS tenant in my building who is about 63 years old, single, no kids, never been married, works in NYU as an IT supervisor for 24 years so you know he's getting paid, living in a 3 bedroom apartment here in the Bronx for a little less than $800 a month! Mind you, market rent in the Bronx for a 3 bedroom apartment is easily $1,750!
So he basically pays less than HALF the market value for the apartment!!!
Assuming the RGB for the next 6 years votes for a lease renewal increase of 15% (which is unheard of and will never ever happen by the way) for a 2 year renewal, it would take my tenant 12 YEARS to catch up to the 2013 market rent figure and thats not even taking into account what the market rent for a 3 bedroom apartment will be in 12 years from now in 2025.
In other words...no matter what percentage increase the RGB vote on, my tenant will NEVER, EVER catch up to market levels!!!!!!!!!!!
So when you hear Landlords complaining about the RGB increase percentages being too low, now you know why. Use my situation as a prime example.
And guess what? If I have a RS tenant that ALREADY pays market rent for his apartment, the RGB percentage increases go out the window and have no bearing on that specific tenant as I continue to offer the market rate RS tenant a preferential rent (discounted rent) than what I can legally get. So to all the pro-rent stabilization people on this board, is this finally starting to make sense to you??????
So if Rent Stabilization were to be abolished tomorrow, my RS tenants who already pay market rents, their rents will remain the same with no increase. The only people that will see an increase are the long time RS tenants such as my tenant I described above. Instead of him paying $800 in rent, I would jack up his rent $950 to $1,750, to what the market rent is for a 3 bedroom apartment in the Bronx. It's that simple.
IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD IF RENT STABILIZATION WERE ABOLISHED AS MANY PRO-RENT STABILIZATION PEOPLE MAKE IT OUT TO BE. THEY'RE JUST FEAR MONGERING.
The assumption here is that the OP's salary is has kept up with or exceeded inflation. That is not the case of all RS tenants.
Here is the difference in your analogy. While personal income has been stagnant for years it is still market wages even today. You may not like the wage but thats what the market pays.
To even it up take a 25% pay cut so only you are earning below market wages.
Then take your normal expense increases and pay them out of your below market wages. When you do get a raise it is based on your reduced pay so you feel the squeeze more than those who are earning market wages.
Now you have a comparison.
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-15-2013 at 04:23 PM..
Very true. In fact, I have a long time Irish RS tenant in my building who is about 63 years old, single, no kids, never been married, works in NYU as an IT supervisor for 24 years so you know he's getting paid, living in a 3 bedroom apartment here in the Bronx for a little less than $800 a month! Mind you, market rent in the Bronx for a 3 bedroom apartment is easily $1,750!
So he basically pays less than HALF the market value for the apartment!!!
Assuming the RGB for the next 6 years votes for a lease renewal increase of 15% (which is unheard of and will never ever happen by the way) for a 2 year renewal, it would take my tenant 12 YEARS to catch up to the 2013 market rent figure and thats not even taking into account what the market rent for a 3 bedroom apartment will be in 12 years from now in 2025.
In other words...no matter what percentage increase the RGB vote on, my tenant will NEVER, EVER catch up to market levels!!!!!!!!!!!
So when you hear Landlords complaining about the RGB increase percentages being too low, now you know why. Use my situation as a prime example.
And guess what? If I have a RS tenant that ALREADY pays market rent for his apartment, the RGB percentage increases go out the window and have no bearing on that specific tenant as I continue to offer the market rate RS tenant a preferential rent (discounted rent) than what I can legally get. So to all the pro-rent stabilization people on this board, is this finally starting to make sense to you??????
So if Rent Stabilization were to be abolished tomorrow, my RS tenants who already pay market rents, their rents will remain the same with no increase. The only people that will see an increase are the long time RS tenants such as my tenant I described above. Instead of him paying $800 in rent, I would jack up his rent $950 to $1,750, to what the market rent is for a 3 bedroom apartment in the Bronx. It's that simple.
IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD IF RENT STABILIZATION WERE ABOLISHED AS MANY PRO-RENT STABILIZATION PEOPLE MAKE IT OUT TO BE. THEY'RE JUST FEAR MONGERING.
What about if they cannot afford those new rents that are doubled? Where do they go to live?
You want rent control ended, build more affordable rental units so that the vacancy rate goes above 1%.
Boston got rid of Rent control, all they saw was a rise in condos, rents skyrocket. Their rental vacancy rate hovers around 1-2%. The poor and some middle class are forced to live in substandard housing in order to find something that they can afford.
It is people like you who would instantly double the rents if were able to do so as the reason we have RC/RS, in addition to the negligible vacancy rate.
What NYC needs is affordable apartments. I am lucky in that I pay 1100 a month for my apartment (non rent controlled/stablized in Astoria) but most 1 bedrooms around here cost between 1250-1400 a month. Even as it is I am paying 45% of my monthly take home pay for my rent.
There are people paying 60% and up of their monthly take home pay as it is, if they were hit with their rents doubling overnight, they would be unable to afford them and who knows what would happen to them.
People are lucky if they get 3% payraises in a year (if they get any pay raise at all), how are they supposed to afford a doubling of their rents?
In this country there's a greater chance that they'll give rent control apartment building owners section 8 and food stamps before they'll give any serious consideration to abolishing rent control.
What about if they cannot afford those new rents that are doubled? Where do they go to live?
X#
You want rent control ended, build more affordable rental units so that the vacancy rate goes above 1%.
Boston got rid of Rent control, all they saw was a rise in condos, rents skyrocket. Their rental vacancy rate hovers around 1-2%. The poor and some middle class are forced to live in substandard housing in order to find something that they can afford.
It is people like you who would instantly double the rents if were able to do so as the reason we have RC/RS, in addition to the negligible vacancy rate.
What NYC needs is affordable apartments. I am lucky in that I pay 1100 a month for my apartment (non rent controlled/stablized in Astoria) but most 1 bedrooms around here cost between 1250-1400 a month. Even as it is I am paying 45% of my monthly take home pay for my rent.
There are people paying 60% and up of their monthly take home pay as it is, if they were hit with their rents doubling overnight, they would be unable to afford them and who knows what would happen to them.
People are lucky if they get 3% payraises in a year (if they get any pay raise at all), how are they supposed to afford a doubling of their rents?
Folks can't live on the backs of others if they can't afford things. Thats what charities are for ,that is what welfare is for.
We give to the causes we support. I don't want any additional people i personally have to subsidize that are strangers to me.
Why are you even assuming the folks in these apartments are poor. That is rediculous logic. Do you think we are talking about low income housing?
We are not. We are not talking nyc housing projects either. Your vision of what rent stabilized apartments that are privately owned are like is very skewed.
It is strictly the length of time that a tenant is in the apartment and has nothing to do with income or net worth.
If you want affordable housing complain to the city to put some up . Rent stabilized is only affordable if you are a long term tenant other wise even that can be at market rates
Rent stabilization was never designed to have anything to do with keeping affordable housing. Its only purpose was to prevent rent gouging.. that is it,nothing else.
The politicians manipulated the numbers holding back rents for many years when they played landlords dirty.
But putting votes aside there was nothing that ever was designed in rent stabilization to artificially keep rents below market.
That is why net worth has nothing to do with it.
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-15-2013 at 05:13 PM..
You want more public housing and welfare? Hope you don't mind then when your taxes go up to pay for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
Folks can't live on the backs of others if they can't afford things. Thats what charities are for ,that is what welfare is for.
We give to the causes we support. I don't want any additional people i personally have to subsidize that are strangers to me.
Why are you even assuming the folks in these apartments are poor. That is rediculous logic. Do you think we are talking about low income housing?
We are not. We are not talking nyc housing projects either. Your vision of what rent stabilized apartments that are privately owned are like is very skewed.
It is strictly the length of time that a tenant is in the apartment and has nothing to do with income or net worth.
If you want affordable housing complain to the city to put some up . Rent stabilized is only affordable if you are a long term tenant other wise even that can be at market rates
Rent stabilization has had nothing to do with keeping affordable housing. Its only purpose was to prevent rent gouging.. that is it,nothing else.
The politicians manipulated the numbers holding back rents for many years when they played landlords dirty.
But putting votes aside there was nothing that ever was designed in rent stabilization to artificially keep rents below market.
Very true. In fact, I have a long time Irish RS tenant in my building who is about 63 years old, single, no kids, never been married, works in NYU as an IT supervisor for 24 years so you know he's getting paid, living in a 3 bedroom apartment here in the Bronx for a little less than $800 a month! Mind you, market rent in the Bronx for a 3 bedroom apartment is easily $1,750!
So he basically pays less than HALF the market value for the apartment!!!
Assuming the RGB for the next 6 years votes for a lease renewal increase of 15% (which is unheard of and will never ever happen by the way) for a 2 year renewal, it would take my tenant 12 YEARS to catch up to the 2013 market rent figure and thats not even taking into account what the market rent for a 3 bedroom apartment will be in 12 years from now in 2025.
In other words...no matter what percentage increase the RGB vote on, my tenant will NEVER, EVER catch up to market levels!!!!!!!!!!!
So when you hear Landlords complaining about the RGB increase percentages being too low, now you know why. Use my situation as a prime example.
And guess what? If I have a RS tenant that ALREADY pays market rent for his apartment, the RGB percentage increases go out the window and have no bearing on that specific tenant as I continue to offer the market rate RS tenant a preferential rent (discounted rent) than what I can legally get. So to all the pro-rent stabilization people on this board, is this finally starting to make sense to you??????
So if Rent Stabilization were to be abolished tomorrow, my RS tenants who already pay market rents, their rents will remain the same with no increase. The only people that will see an increase are the long time RS tenants such as my tenant I described above. Instead of him paying $800 in rent, I would jack up his rent $950 to $1,750, to what the market rent is for a 3 bedroom apartment in the Bronx. It's that simple.
IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD IF RENT STABILIZATION WERE ABOLISHED AS MANY PRO-RENT STABILIZATION PEOPLE MAKE IT OUT TO BE. THEY'RE JUST FEAR MONGERING.
Is that area in the bronx a bad area though? For someone like him how much would a buyout would he get?
I would like to mention another thing. The area i live isn't exactly a good area like those locations on the upper east or west side. The area isn't that good.
So when many of you mention 40k, 50k, i think the landlord would laugh at that. Or am i wrong here? I know everything is location location location. My location is great if you want to take public transporation in nyc but the area isn't that good. However, the rent for my place would be around 2300 month if we they were to rent to another tenant.
Would that be a big consideration? That the area isn't that good but it isn't that that bad?
There is a ton of bitterness and anger from LLs of RS/RC buildings and I can understand it. However, nobody forced you to agree to RS/RC in your buildings!!!! You chose to do it and got something in return. The problem is, you didn't have the foresight to see that this was going to bite you in the rear one day.
Sorry, but that's how it is.
Why did any of the LLs here agree to RS/RC in the first place???? And if you "inherited" your building from a relative, don't complain! You got a free building (minus whatever taxes you had to pay when you got it) so you're still coming out ahead. Don't like it? SELL and move on!
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.
