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.
Your questions are quite silly; ignorant. As were your "questions" on an earlier thread. You genuinely have no idea, which is why I will now guess that you are a transplant on the younger side and an angry one at that.
I could correct your grammar if you like, responding in a sense.
But more people could, if there were not so many "gut rehab" fake paperwork situations, which result in stabilized rents nearing market rents - illegally. People need to investigate their rents for that reason.
While it is true that many people have long-time regulated apartments, their children do not. Most of the young people who grew up in Harlem, for example, cannot afford to live here now. Too much "quiet," and illegal, rent raising to push the figure closer to deregulation. None of these young people are generational poverty types. Many will eventually do quite well.
I was one of those Harlem residents who grew up and moved. I could not raise my family there at the time because of the cost of housing. If I wanted to return today, I couldn't. Harlem became "unaffordable for me and my family" long before Columbia University and gentrification began.
I can't speak to long timers who still have their RS apartments, as I don't know any who do. This is not to say their aren't any, but I never questioned this so I'm not sure why you insert it here for me.
I do believe that strong arming of individuals have taken place to get buildings back to market rate levels before their time has come. I own now in one of the outer boroughs and pay a crap load of taxes just like everyone else who complains about the "inferiors."
New York is such that even the worst neighborhoods in the least desirable areas (parts of Harlem come to mind) where rents were astronomically high.
The right and least painful thing to do is to let RS/RC gradually phase out and die off which is what's been happening since the 90's and rightfully so. Doing it this way softens the blow.
As mentioned before, the only people that truly benefit from RS are old time NYers. These are the people that you see in the news pay $200, $300 for a 3 bedroom apartment.
Also mentioned here before is that if you go apartment hunting today and score a RS apartment, chances are the rent for the RS apartment is at current market levels or very close to it. Meaning that there is no longer any monetary benefit to having a RS apartment like it was back in the day.
So if the tenant lobby want to make RS stricter, the "stricter" law they want to impose on RS would only benefit those old time NYers paying dirt cheap rent. Those "stricter" laws the tenant lobby want to impose on RS apartment will not make those market rate RS apartments any cheaper. The cat is out the hat already for those market rate RS apartments.
So the question is...why would anyone support such "stricter" RS laws knowing that it only protects these old time NYers to preserve their dirt cheap rent while everyone else has to pay fair market rents despite being RS.
Because in part there is no place to put these OLD people who will die off in the not too distant future.
Of course if the landlord really wants them out he can buy them out, and many have done so.
Or in a walk up if a landlord wants to turn the building into a mansion for himself he can legally evict the rent stabilized tenants.
The ending of rent stabilization isn't going to make the nice parts of NYC more affordable for you, you realize. It's really a non issue.
Btw, it's extremely rare these days for people to pay $200-$400 for an apartment. Landlords have successfully done all they can do to get rid of these people and they have largely succeeded. I have known many people whose landlords found ways to get them out of rent stabilized apartments all over NYC from Harlem to the Lower East Side to hot parts of Brooklyn and Queens.
So why bother with changing the law when landlords are doing JUST fine? And as noted, RC is nearly extinct and rent stabilization is being phased out.
In buildings that have tenants paying $300 a month, because landlords aren't making money from the building, they never repair the building. So the landlord can have the city inspectors come in, declare the building unfit to live in and issue a vacate the premise order. Then the landlord does major repairs and rents go dramatically upward.
So why bother with changing the law when landlords are doing JUST fine? And as noted, RC is nearly extinct and rent stabilization is being phased out.
The limit for RS increased fairly recently from $2000 to $2500- what a slap in the face for all landlords who thought they were almost out of the woods with some tenants.
Not necessarily slow down. The real estate prices have hit a ceiling and are going down/stabilizing.
They basically went over what people moving into Bedstuy were willing to pay, and now the market is resetting itself.
The rate of people moving into Bedstuy could still be the same, though.
The article is written from the point of view that the big returns are over. If you bought in Bedstuy in 2008 or 2009 you did fantastically well.
But prices are so high now you cannot get that return on your investment from just buying a brownstone so that type of investment is over.
The neighborhood will need to enter the next phase of investment, better retail and amenities. That's likely a few years away but it will happen soon enough.
The limit for RS increased fairly recently from $2000 to $2500- what a slap in the face for all landlords who thought they were almost out of the woods with some tenants.
It won't be too hard to raise the rent to 2500 in any expensive part of town.
I was one of those Harlem residents who grew up and moved. I could not raise my family there at the time because of the cost of housing. If I wanted to return today, I couldn't. Harlem became "unaffordable for me and my family" long before Columbia University and gentrification began.
I can't speak to long timers who still have their RS apartments, as I don't know any who do. This is not to say their aren't any, but I never questioned this so I'm not sure why you insert it here for me.
I do believe that strong arming of individuals have taken place to get buildings back to market rate levels before their time has come. I own now in one of the outer boroughs and pay a crap load of taxes just like everyone else who complains about the "inferiors."
New York is such that even the worst neighborhoods in the least desirable areas (parts of Harlem come to mind) where rents were astronomically high.
I have a feeling that things will be moving in another direction. How much so remains to be seen.
Most of the objections, such as those you have seen here, are preposterous hyperbole - upheld by the ignorant, which is amusing until it becomes annoying.
In Harlem now, some people will be removed but there are also a lot of smart and legitimate people. Harlem could be the place where a rather different scheme of things first manifests itself.
In my opinion, Columbia is the least of the factors for unchecked profiteering, perhaps what you meant by gentrification. For starters, it is a very confined area. Second, the university is actually doing a lot for people, things that will enable them to stay.
If you are thinking of Columbia students looking for housing and displacing locals, many of them have social ethics going on and therefore they are the first people who will fight to determine their legal rents, which means stoping illegal deregulation. They realize that this will not impact them in the long run but will impact a lot of people coming after them. Rather identical to my own involvements.
They are also willing to educate those tenants who do not know this process or their rights. Although many people here do know.
No, the crazy "jealous" thing did not assert itself.
Anyone who has a different opinion (read: knows more) about a given topic is just "jealous." It's a strategy for distracting attention when holes in the argument appear.
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.
