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.
WHY ? because there have been no rentals built since the late 1970's anywhere in the 5 boros that were stabilized and not low income or special project..
that means they all had their tax abatements come and go for the most part decades ago.
unless there are some special situation deals for the most part the abatements are long gone.
This is simply untrue. I know about many projects with significant abatements.
I also know three (four ? - a complex) medium-ish rise buildings on St. Nicholas that were just completed, have major abatements attached, and ARE stabilized - even the nearing-market leases.
How do I know ? Because people in the community are tired of "affordable." There were lots of meetings.
There is too much "affordable" here, as I would guess is the same in some areas of the Bronx.
I will bet they are special situation . Post the address and i will see. Dollars to donuts they are subsidized housing. if they are stabilized and bought after the late 1970's they are going to be special situation.
no one put up rentals unless they were ear marked as affordable housing or low income which get subsidized.
there are income caps I will bet on those apartments. .
I will bet they are special situation . Post the address and i will see. Dollars to donuts they are subsidized housing. if they are stabilized and bought after the late 1970's they are going to be special situation.
no one put up rentals unless they were ear marked as affordable housing or low income.
which goes back to what I said.
Cannot recall the address, St Nicholas near the 127th subway exit - it is "mixed income," the high end was actually quite high for this area, $250,000 ? or so. Low was around $45,000 I think. No programs.
Only one piece of land was the city - the developer purchased the other parcels from private sources, individuals.
But I think I have failed to understand your point. Why put up a stabilized building without the tag "affordable."
On the other hand, there are half a dozen or more market co-op buildings on FDB, a market-rate rental building on St. N. just below 125th, and actually another on lower FDB - all new constructions.
I know these things because there are big arguments here, no more "affordable" here vs. everything must be "low income." Every new building is debated and argued and somebody wins.
It is not a new construction, but the building just below 125th on Morningside, burned out several times, will be 100% market rentals - last I knew. The building is being developed from a literal shell. I do realize that re-hab differs, just a comment.
I think a lot of unnecessary hate has been thrown by some at the OP here, who only asked what the deal was with regard to his landlord approaching him and asking him to leave. It's not like he took the attitude of some past posters here that were looking for ways to get money when they were planning on moving anyway. Here you have a person that lives in an apartment that they like, the furnishings and what have you were purchased for the space and they don't want to move. Heaping scorn on them because they tell their landlord that they do not wish to move is unfair. It actually sounded as though the OP was weighing the options available to them and decided that moving would increase their expenses to a degree that they would be unwilling to take on when they have a perfectly good apartment now that they are permitted by law to stay in.
I get the anger at the LAW. I have lived in RS apartments but paid market rent in all of them and most people I know are paying their $1300 for their 1 bedroom RS units because that's what they cost. There is this manufactured idea that everyone that lives in a stabilized apartment is living in a four bedroom apartment in Manhattan for $600 a month and those situations are fewer than the perception that exists.
I do think that the stabilized rent should terminate immediately upon the death of the original tenant and adding "children" to the lease to keep the place in the family should be disallowed. Having generations and generations of people taking over a lease is just insane.
Cannot recall the address, St Nicholas near the 127th subway exit - it is "mixed income," the high end was actually quite high for this area, $250,000 ? or so. Low was around $45,000 I think. No programs.
Only one piece of land was the city - the developer purchased the other parcels from private sources, individuals.
But I think I have failed to understand your point. Why put up a stabilized building without the tag "affordable."
On the other hand, there are half a dozen or more market co-op buildings on FDB, a market-rate rental building on St. N. just below 125th, and actually another on lower FDB - all new constructions.
I know these things because there are big arguments here, no more "affordable" here vs. everything must be "low income." Every new building is debated and argued and somebody wins.
It is not a new construction, but the building just below 125th on Morningside, burned out several times, will be 100% market rentals - last I knew. The building is being developed from a literal shell. I do realize that re-hab differs, just a comment.
It is subsidized, the developer gets subsidies to compensate . Max income is 23k for a single and 49k for a family of 4 and reduced if not 4.
I knew it had to be. Trust me their were no open market rentals built that were not over the limit to run into stabilization issues ..
When you find one post the address because so far no one has been able to come up with one.
What they think the building is and what it actually is are usually very different
I agree that too much hate gets thrown around because of this idea that everyone who lives in a rent stabilized apartment is some rich CEO that makes more money than the owner and still lives there. My parents have lived in a 2 bedroom apartment in a very good neighborhood at $350 for more than 30 years. No they're not rich, they immigrated here and make $30K together. I bet there's much more cases like this than the ones complained about here.
Honestly the best case scenario would be for the OP to buy a place. Take however long you need to save up for a down payment with a rate that is affordable. Even the landlord may think it's a good idea to do a 50K buyout (or whatever the price) if it means it will get him/her that vacant spot quicker for a longer term profit.
just the opposite is true. most throw out visions of some grandmother living on her social security check in her stabilized apartment and that is not a true picture of the diverse net worths and incomes who occupy these apartments.
net worth and income up to 250k are not part of the equation and these apartments were never meant to be anything less than market value in concept.
the problem is people here shoot from the hip and don't understand the differences in housing.
these folk have no business living where they do if they can not afford it the same as most new yorkers , it was never by design they are there only dirty politics.
they belong in affordable, special situation or low income housing the same as anyone else trying live on that income would be.
we reward failure far to much in nyc .
new york city is the greatest city in the country, maybe even the world for opportunity. if you can't make it here successfully and survive and i am not talking rich or wealthy , where are you going to make it?
our laws and welfare system invite abuse and failure. run a little spread sheet to list all the money ,tax breaks and gimmees you would get at each income level and how much would you have to earn to equal some one earning 20k with kids utilizing the system..
but that is another topic.
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-19-2013 at 04:12 AM..
This is simply untrue. I know about many projects with significant abatements.
I also know three (four ? - a complex) medium-ish rise buildings on St. Nicholas that were just completed, have major abatements attached, and ARE stabilized - even the nearing-market leases.
How do I know ? Because people in the community are tired of "affordable." There were lots of meetings.
There is too much "affordable" here, as I would guess is the same in some areas of the Bronx.
what is simply untrue is your examples . you are shooting from the hip before you looked to even see these are affordable housing units not open market rentals .
I know it is the law for RS RC, i just dont agree with it.
I dont think it applies to non RC RS apts. At least in our building that has 32 apts that are not RC RS, the LL only paints when the tenant moves out, not during the tenancy.
The author of the blog post who had cited the NYC regulation does state the law applies to RC, RS, and market-rate apartments. He is well-versed about NYC real estate. Furthermore, the way the law reads does not explicitly include or exclude market-rate apartments from this law. If you know of a law that states differently, please let us know.
I think a lot of unnecessary hate has been thrown by some at the OP here, who only asked what the deal was with regard to his landlord approaching him and asking him to leave. It's not like he took the attitude of some past posters here that were looking for ways to get money when they were planning on moving anyway. Here you have a person that lives in an apartment that they like, the furnishings and what have you were purchased for the space and they don't want to move. Heaping scorn on them because they tell their landlord that they do not wish to move is unfair. It actually sounded as though the OP was weighing the options available to them and decided that moving would increase their expenses to a degree that they would be unwilling to take on when they have a perfectly good apartment now that they are permitted by law to stay in.
I agree. Furthermore, if the LL is trying so hard to get the tenant out before the lease is up, why should the tenant move? The tenant needs an incentive. Since the LL had initiated the conversation and seems eager to get the tenant to move, and depending on the conditions of the market, presumably there is room for negotiation. The tenant didn't create these conditions; the tenant was asking for advice for how to weigh his options.
Quote:
I get the anger at the LAW. I have lived in RS apartments but paid market rent in all of them and most people I know are paying their $1300 for their 1 bedroom RS units because that's what they cost. There is this manufactured idea that everyone that lives in a stabilized apartment is living in a four bedroom apartment in Manhattan for $600 a month and those situations are fewer than the perception that exists.
Is there any data on the household incomes of those living in RC/RS apartments?
Quote:
I do think that the stabilized rent should terminate immediately upon the death of the original tenant and adding "children" to the lease to keep the place in the family should be disallowed. Having generations and generations of people taking over a lease is just insane.
Even if the children had been living there all along?
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.
