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.
There are something like 900,000 rent regulated apartments. What % are significantly below market, maybe half? And if they get forced up to market how many of those renters will actually move? I would think a large %, say 75%. And how many of those would actually leave the city? This I can't predict.
Again it is worth saying a bulk of those who would be hit by any loss of "below market" rents would be those living in prime areas of Manhattan, Brooklyn and perhaps parts of Queens. Even a small studio in Greenwich Village or Chelsea now renting for say $1500/per month could fetch much more in today's market.
Everywhere else such as parts of Harlem, much of the Bronx and so forth the RS is often *higher* than the market rent. Suppose if gentrification continues *everywhere* even in these outer areas will get prime rents, but I don't see that happening for certain places anytime soon.
As for this whole argument about income verification the idea is just stupid. So what happens when you find someone earning >$300K per year and has a RS apartment say in Chelsea with a cheap/below market rent? Does anyone in their right mind think that if the LL manages to get that tenant out said unit will be rented again as "affordable" housing at the same below market rent? No, it won't! Once the previous tenant is pushed out the LL will do what others have already, gut renovate the place to get the rent near or above 2K per month and thus out of RS.
If NYC is so serious about preserving RS units why aren't they doing something about entire buildings being emptied via buyouts? Just passed a series of buildings on East 78th Street ( 243 & 253 ) were emptied out and now have rodent baited "danger" signs posted. That usually only happens when a structure is going to be demolished IIRC. Think of how many RS or perhaps even RC units were in these two buildings. Copperwood
Again it is worth saying a bulk of those who would be hit by any loss of "below market" rents would be those living in prime areas of Manhattan, Brooklyn and perhaps parts of Queens. Even a small studio in Greenwich Village or Chelsea now renting for say $1500/per month could fetch much more in today's market.
Everywhere else such as parts of Harlem, much of the Bronx and so forth the RS is often *higher* than the market rent. Suppose if gentrification continues *everywhere* even in these outer areas will get prime rents, but I don't see that happening for certain places anytime soon.
As for this whole argument about income verification the idea is just stupid. So what happens when you find someone earning >$300K per year and has a RS apartment say in Chelsea with a cheap/below market rent? Does anyone in their right mind think that if the LL manages to get that tenant out said unit will be rented again as "affordable" housing at the same below market rent? No, it won't! Once the previous tenant is pushed out the LL will do what others have already, gut renovate the place to get the rent near or above 2K per month and thus out of RS.
If NYC is so serious about preserving RS units why aren't they doing something about entire buildings being emptied via buyouts? Just passed a series of buildings on East 78th Street ( 243 & 253 ) were emptied out and now have rodent baited "danger" signs posted. That usually only happens when a structure is going to be demolished IIRC. Think of how many RS or perhaps even RC units were in these two buildings. Copperwood
Pretty much the whole block on 95th street and 3rd Avenue was demolished, to be replaced by luxury housing.
The entire idea about the income verification is extended to do exactly what you said above. It's really a way of removing more apartments out of rent stabilization. The Republicans, if they renew the laws would like to speed up the ending of rent stabilization.
Again it is worth saying a bulk of those who would be hit by any loss of "below market" rents would be those living in prime areas of Manhattan, Brooklyn and perhaps parts of Queens. Even a small studio in Greenwich Village or Chelsea now renting for say $1500/per month could fetch much more in today's market.
Everywhere else such as parts of Harlem, much of the Bronx and so forth the RS is often *higher* than the market rent. Suppose if gentrification continues *everywhere* even in these outer areas will get prime rents, but I don't see that happening for certain places anytime soon.
As for this whole argument about income verification the idea is just stupid. So what happens when you find someone earning >$300K per year and has a RS apartment say in Chelsea with a cheap/below market rent? Does anyone in their right mind think that if the LL manages to get that tenant out said unit will be rented again as "affordable" housing at the same below market rent? No, it won't! Once the previous tenant is pushed out the LL will do what others have already, gut renovate the place to get the rent near or above 2K per month and thus out of RS.
If NYC is so serious about preserving RS units why aren't they doing something about entire buildings being emptied via buyouts? Just passed a series of buildings on East 78th Street ( 243 & 253 ) were emptied out and now have rodent baited "danger" signs posted. That usually only happens when a structure is going to be demolished IIRC. Think of how many RS or perhaps even RC units were in these two buildings. Copperwood
If Rent Stablization/Control truly was about the less fortunate, then I would be more sympathetic. If the democrats came along and said "Well, if you keep the RS/RC, we'll retool the program for it to actually serve the Middle/working classes of the city", I could live with that. As it stands, what benefit RS/RC has for struggling NYers is questionable at best.
Second, people aren't owed spots in prime Manhattan. In fact, you're robbing the city of valuable tax revenue that pays for the cops/firemen/schoolteachers/etc we all depend on. NYers, especally those of lesser means, benefit from having high-income individuals wanting to live here. They provide jobs and revenue.
If Rent Stablization/Control truly was about the less fortunate, then I would be more sympathetic. If the democrats came along and said "Well, if you keep the RS/RC, we'll retool the program for it to actually serve the Middle/working classes of the city", I could live with that. As it stands, what benefit RS/RC has for struggling NYers is questionable at best.
Second, people aren't owed spots in prime Manhattan. In fact, you're robbing the city of valuable tax revenue that pays for the cops/firemen/schoolteachers/etc we all depend on. NYers, especally those of lesser means, benefit from having high-income individuals wanting to live here. They provide jobs and revenue.
Nobody is owed a prime spot in the city. But you can't just throw people of NYC (especially long term residents) because they have lesser financial means.
Housing is a asset that everyone competes for. In NYC, it's more valuable than other places. If people don't have the means to acquire here, they need to move someplace where they do.
If we were talking about someplace that already had cheap housing, and people still couldn't afford it, that would be one thing. But were talking about the most expensive city in the country. If people can't afford to live here, there are a huge number of cheaper places they can go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava61
Nobody is owed a prime spot in the city. But you can't just throw people of NYC (especially long term residents) because they have lesser financial means.
Yes, but what are the numbers that go with that? What % of rent stabilized units are already at market?
They've had high income decontrol for a long time now. But the LLs don't use it very much. They'd much rather just be able to get vacated apartments off of regulation. That happened a lot when the high rent threshold was $2,000. It slowed down when they raised it to $2,500.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
Again it is worth saying a bulk of those who would be hit by any loss of "below market" rents would be those living in prime areas of Manhattan, Brooklyn and perhaps parts of Queens. Even a small studio in Greenwich Village or Chelsea now renting for say $1500/per month could fetch much more in today's market.
Everywhere else such as parts of Harlem, much of the Bronx and so forth the RS is often *higher* than the market rent. Suppose if gentrification continues *everywhere* even in these outer areas will get prime rents, but I don't see that happening for certain places anytime soon.
As for this whole argument about income verification the idea is just stupid. So what happens when you find someone earning >$300K per year and has a RS apartment say in Chelsea with a cheap/below market rent? Does anyone in their right mind think that if the LL manages to get that tenant out said unit will be rented again as "affordable" housing at the same below market rent? No, it won't! Once the previous tenant is pushed out the LL will do what others have already, gut renovate the place to get the rent near or above 2K per month and thus out of RS.
If NYC is so serious about preserving RS units why aren't they doing something about entire buildings being emptied via buyouts? Just passed a series of buildings on East 78th Street ( 243 & 253 ) were emptied out and now have rodent baited "danger" signs posted. That usually only happens when a structure is going to be demolished IIRC. Think of how many RS or perhaps even RC units were in these two buildings. Copperwood
It won't be that much of a shift for much of the city. Only in prime areas
While the hugest shift would be West Manhattan 125th and down, and East Manhattan 96th and down- it would be a fundamental shift not in price of other locations, but mobility.
Without people tied to eternal leases there may be more mobility every few years.
If rent isn't discounted and a lease isn't guaranteed, one might move closer to work if they take a new job.
Nobody is owed a prime spot in the city. But you can't just throw people of NYC (especially long term residents) because they have lesser financial means.
The actual stupidity here is evidenced in the opinion that STILL connects money with "better." It is always the new money people who do this but that's another thread. One genius posting here actually commented that rent regulation takes away "incentive" to work harder. I am apparently fortunate in that I realize just how many important and meaningful occupations pay just about nothing.
Look at the poster above first touting the "necessary" people, even identified as NYPD, social workers and teachers - I would say, very important - as those hurt by regulation because tax dollars are needed for their salaries.
At the same time, according to such dim-witted opinions, granted products of our currently elitist arrangement of education, these "necessary" people are nonetheless meaningless enough to be relocated to the outer boroughs.
This is certainly the case for many of my colleagues. Few have family money, I think one other person. I will try to remember to tell them to "work harder" for their $40,000 - 50,000 while they educate (some of them are quite talented) the children and young people of those who argue here against their best interests. Just one example.
Even the people who know better are forced to live in what is increasingly the wasteland created by the unexamined opinions of these one-dimensional thinkers. I can afford to live anywhere and would definitely rather live around people who actually do something rather than the unfortunate off-spring of finance people and other basically superfluous individuals.
If Rent Stablization/Control truly was about the less fortunate, then I would be more sympathetic. If the democrats came along and said "Well, if you keep the RS/RC, we'll retool the program for it to actually serve the Middle/working classes of the city", I could live with that. As it stands, what benefit RS/RC has for struggling NYers is questionable at best.
Second, people aren't owed spots in prime Manhattan. In fact, you're robbing the city of valuable tax revenue that pays for the cops/firemen/schoolteachers/etc we all depend on. NYers, especally those of lesser means, benefit from having high-income individuals wanting to live here. They provide jobs and revenue.
This is true. A portion of real estate taxes go to the MTA, so you're even robbing the city of money to expand mass transit, something that the entire public in the region depends on, either directly or indirectly.
Housing is a asset that everyone competes for. In NYC, it's more valuable than other places. If people don't have the means to acquire here, they need to move someplace where they do.
If we were talking about someplace that already had cheap housing, and people still couldn't afford it, that would be one thing. But were talking about the most expensive city in the country. If people can't afford to live here, there are a huge number of cheaper places they can go.
It really won't save a poor person who cannot drive money if they move to another part of the country. When you're making the minimum wage or close everyplace is going to become expensive.
Gentrification has not ended poverty in the region it just pushes it further out. Areas like the North Bronx, South Shore of Staten Island, Eastern Brooklyn, and parts of the Rockaways just have more poor people now. NYC also has more homeless people in PRIME parts of the city.
Do not delude yourself into thinking every poor person will leave the city. That is never going to happen.
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.
