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.
Even with all the noise about 80/20 creating RS apartments the number of such units continues to decline year after year. That shows the system is indeed "temporary" and LLs are getting back full control of their property.
And what say you if they raise the de-control level to $2,750, $3,000, $3250, etc... after recently raising it from $2000? They keep moving the goal posts - it is the government's stated objective to keep as many RC and RS apartments in the system as possible. That doesn't sound temporary to me
And what say you if they raise the de-control level to $2,750, $3,000, $3250, etc... after recently raising it from $2000? They keep moving the goal posts - it is the government's stated objective to keep as many RC and RS apartments in the system as possible. That doesn't sound temporary to me
Do not think the luxury decontrol amounts will ever reach those levels. And again as one stated LL's do have ways to get out of the RS system.
In my mind's eye the largest problem isn't vacancy decontrol of RS units but persons taking buy out offers to give up their units. Entire buildings are being emptied out via this route (just recently 253 and its sister adjoining building on East 77th IIRC), much faster than vacancy control ever could.
Do not think the luxury decontrol amounts will ever reach those levels. And again as one stated LL's do have ways to get out of the RS system.
In my mind's eye the largest problem isn't vacancy decontrol of RS units but persons taking buy out offers to give up their units. Entire buildings are being emptied out via this route (just recently 253 and its sister adjoining building on East 77th IIRC), much faster than vacancy control ever could.
In any case, what does it matter if these apartments go away? It's not like they're available anyways, and many if not most are currently occupied by people who would be able to afford an apartment in an unregulated market.
They should sell to a developer who has the resources to remove the building from rent stabilization.
I don't know why anyone would want to be a small time landlord anyway.
Just because the building may be *small* does not mean it is owned by a "small time landlord".
While there are still mom & pop landlords in NYC you have no idea how much property is owned by the large real estate families or companies. For various reasons each small building maybe listed under its own LLC, but make no mistake the trail leads back to the same management company/property owning family.
In my mind's eye the largest problem isn't vacancy decontrol of RS units but persons taking buy out offers to give up their units. Entire buildings are being emptied out via this route (just recently 253 and its sister adjoining building on East 77th IIRC), much faster than vacancy control ever could.
Agree. What astonishes me is the fact that, here anyway, the same people who rant about "gentrification" (complete with race undertones) will sell out in a heartbeat, and usually for far less than they might have gotten.
HOWEWVER ... I would hope people realize the following fact: A buy-out means that a given tenant gives up rights, not that a unit is deregulated. The deregulation is de facto and occurs in the smoke and haze that follows the usual "gut-rehab" - not at all a legal given. The unit in question is still subject to regulation. But landlords are usually cunning enough to find tenants who will not question the circumstances of the rent they are charged. Or so they hope.
Not everyone who wishes to see the end of Rent Regulation is a landlord.
The only people who wish for it to stay however, are, tenants who are under the program.
Not true. It does not impact me at all except that I see the ethical issue.
There are many people who feel the same.
No need for people to come forth "explaining" how there is no ethical issue. I probably know more about the whole thing than you do and I simply do not agree.
Not true. It does not impact me at all except that I see the ethical issue.
There are many people who feel the same.
No need for people to come forth "explaining" how there is no ethical issue. I probably know more about the whole thing than you do and I simply do not agree.
Ethics aside, rent regulations have an impact on nearly everyone in New York City in some way.
Ethics aside, rent regulations have an impact on nearly everyone in New York City in some way.
We agree on that then. This was my point.
It is not just tenants in such apartments - or landlords who own such buildings - who have opinions.
Landlords are in favor of regulation well because it benefits them. It is only once an area becomes "desirable" that regulation becomes a problem for them.
Most opposition comes from transplants, who are bitter about not securing a regulated lease, and/or people who know someone like that.
We agree on that then. This was my point.
It is not just tenants in such apartments - or landlords who own such buildings - who have opinions.
Landlords are in favor of regulation well because it benefits them. It is only once an area becomes "desirable" that regulation becomes a problem for them.
Most opposition comes from transplants, who are bitter about not securing a regulated lease, and/or people who know someone like that.
... and educated urban planners and economists and urban studies researchers.
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.