Should All Rent Subsidies and Stabilization Be Ended? (condos, co-op)
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.
As someone who lives in the Bronx who is moving out in just a few weeks, if I lived here any longer I'd get a car. You cannot get around by train in the Bronx, as the train network just brings you into Manhattan. A lot of people in the Bronx, especially the North Bronx DRIVE cars. Not all employment is in Manhattan. If you taught school or college or work in the medical sector, it would be much more convenient over the long term to drive to work. And many do. Enough to keep the streets and expressways full of cars.
Different cities have different economies and different jobs. You may not be able to find enough work in one field in one city, while other city may have plenty of jobs in that field. Therefore its up to the individual person to go wherever he can find reasonable employment to support himself.
You don't improve your life by constantly making excuses and expecting people to feel sorry for you.
BTW, an one bedroom in NYC is very different from an one bedroom apartment in most places. Apartments in NYC tend to be small, for starters. $1700 a month in many places is also a mortgage on a HOUSE.
But the bottom line is, its not the government's responsibility to maintain your living situation in NYC, especially in the most EXPENSIVE areas of the city (Manhattan south of 96th street, parts of Brooklyn, and Queens). There's weeping and wailing about the rapid decline of rent stabilized apartments in Manhattan, but since when do you have a constitutional right to live in Manhattan?
When I started out I worked from my companies Westchester office and we serviced many small businesses in the Bronx. We went to them, because the small business person can't afford to leave their businesses most times. So I was all over the Bronx and I didn't have a car, I was also living in Manhattan but moved to the Bronx after awhile. While it was definitely inconvenient it was doable. In some other places there is absolutely no public transportation. There is no option for inconvenience or using a car. You either drive or stay home.
Why do you think people are asking anyone to feel sorry for them because they want to live in their hometowm for whatever reason. Yes every American has the right by law to live where they want to live in this country. No the government doesn't have to subsidize them. That being the case they have to decide if they can stay or not. They don't have to listen to you while you stand on your soap box preaching about why they should pack their bags and get out now.
If NY was temporary why do so many seniors live here? It was just published that NYers live the longest anywhere in the US. There are many things for seniors to do here, and for free or low cost. Plus they don't have to drive, something that some people can't do after a certain age.
The last few posts arguments are not about rent stabilization ending but are about whether people can actually afford to move, and whether they can survive somewhere else. If a person has a base here (job, family, friends) they can probably find a way to survive here.
Maybe 3 guys can rent one of those beat up old apts in Morrisania for less than 1K a month and fix it up, or even 4 or 5 buy a house that is livable and do the same. There are foreclosures, and others trying to sell before being foreclosed in these neighborhoods.
People would be forced to be more creative. Many people are not used to pooling resources to do things financially together outside of immediate family. I know that people talk about it but don't act on it. Those that do will have a head start on everyone else. Because rent stabilization will be over in a few years just because the limits on rent will be reached and the city can't afford to keep giving one shot deals. As you have pointed out there were many evictions which means that they denied many already.
Yes every American has the right by law to live where they want to live in this country. No the government doesn't have to subsidize them.
Nor should everyone else get screwed having to pay for them, including other taxpayers, their neighbors - or the huge numbers of young people who want to move to NYC from all over the country and are forced to live like cattle - 6/8 to an apartment to be able to afford being here because the rents are so ridiculously high, due to rent stabilization preventing sufficient new housing stock from being built.
In the natural order of things, the old would move out and make room for the young, but due to the market deforming practices, the old linger in huge apartments while the young are crowded into boxcars.
The answer to eliminating Rent Control and Rent Stabilization in a fair way is to first make both RS and RC INCOME BASED. Meaning that in order to qualify for a below market rent apartment, the tenant has to make X amount of $ a year verified by their income tax returns. Simply making it INCOME BASED will weed out a good 40% of the current RS/RC tenant who either make good income and/or rent out their below market RS/RC at market rent and collect the spread on the Landlord's dime.
Once we establish via income tax returns which people really qualify and need a RS/RC apartment, the City should subsidize the tenant by giving the Landlord a credit to his property tax bill equal to the amount of the below market rent the tenant pays minus the fair market rent for the apartment.
So if the fair market rent for an apartment is say $1,800 per month but the tenant can only afford to pay $800 a month, the $1,000 difference per month x 12 months ($12,000) would be deducted from the Landlord's $100K annual property tax bill. Therefore, instead of the Landlord paying $100K a year in property taxes, the landlord instead pays $88,000. All these system does is charge an internal CREDIT to the Landlord and no REAL money is being exchanged. Similar to what the City's SCRIE program does.
Doing it this way, we create a win-win situation where the tenant pays what they can afford and stays in the apartment and the Landlord collects the fair market rent for the apartment and everyone is happy. This is the fairest way to go.
So if that's the case, so what if it's for the greater good. Right? Democratic politicians LOVE to raise taxes especially if its to fund more welfare cases or fund city union worker's salary increases and health care benefits.
Nor should everyone else get screwed having to pay for them, including other taxpayers, their neighbors - or the huge numbers of young people who want to move to NYC from all over the country and are forced to live like cattle - 6/8 to an apartment to be able to afford being here because the rents are so ridiculously high, due to rent stabilization preventing sufficient new housing stock from being built.
In the natural order of things, the old would move out and make room for the young, but due to the market deforming practices, the old linger in huge apartments while the young are crowded into boxcars.
The young people having to live 6-8 in an apt is nothing new. In the old NY entire families lived In 2 rooms with the bathroom in the hall. This is traditional NY. Especially Manhattan. If a family wanted more space they moved to another Boro. They usually bought their apts or their homes. Any older people living in a large apt that they are renting probably has other people living there also. They are probably living in an area that wasn't desirable a few years ago. Many buildings in these areas in all boros are cooped now. That is mainly the reason for shortage of rentals.
Most apts and houses in NY are small by the standards of the rest of the country. It is a struggle for the average person that wants to stay in Manhattan.
There is plenty of space for all the people that want to come here. 6-8 people can find 2 or 3 apts near each other in a Boro other than Manhattan. The thing is they should be prepared to buy. These are the realities of NYC.
When rent stabilization ends, and it will in a few years, keep in mind that rents at first will go up to the extreme. Some think they will go down after but I don't think so for a while. Because there are people that will pay them. Others that want to break into certain industries will come prepared to buy something. Many people will leave, and certain industries will move elsewhere. Many have already moved. You can see that many office buildings are now condos. But exactly how does the current law prevent New housing stock from being built?
Most seniors live in small senior apts unless they bought their place. So whatever you are stating has no relevance for the average person.
To everyone talking about their "tax dollars" paying for all these "entitlements", please stop FANTASIZING that your tax dollars will suddenly dip if the government ended all "handouts" tomorrow.
It won't.
The King will still send the tax man out to collect his money and taxes will STILL go up. They'll need the money to take away many of the dead and dying in the street to be burned in the crematoriums. This costs money.
So if that's the case, so what if it's for the greater good. Right? Democratic politicians LOVE to raise taxes especially if its to fund more welfare cases or fund city union worker's salary increases and health care benefits.
Democrat and Rebublican politicians are putting it in their own pockets. City workers haven't had a raise in a decade. They also pay much more each year toward their healthcare just like other employees all over the country.
When rent stabilization ends, and it will in a few years, keep in mind that rents at first will go up to the extreme. Some think they will go down after but I don't think so for a while. Because their are people that will pay them. Others that want to break into certain industries will come prepared to buy something. Many people will leave, and certain industries will move elsewhere. Many have already moved. You can see that many office buildings are now condos. But exactly how does the current law prevent New housing stock from being built?
Most seniors live in small senior apts unless they bought their place. So whatever you are stating has no relevance for the average person.
There is no sign of rent stabilization ending in NYC. It will be a rocky road, and even if one day such a change does happen, expect an incredibly long delay at it's dismantling.
As someone previously has stated, government incentive programs like Section 8 cost $$$$, forcing landlords to accept less $$ for their property at their own cost- is fairly inexpensive for the government.
So if that's the case, so what if it's for the greater good. Right?
The Nazis said this phrase a lot too.
Some things NEVER change.
Same story, different place with only the cast of characters changing.
Pathetic. Man will never learn.
People worry about going to a mythical place called "hell" when they die, but what they fail to realize is that we're already HERE. Living it.
I wish I could go back and undo whatever it was I did that sent me here. I really do.
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.
