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.
Rents have gone up everywhere for a variety of reasons:
- restrictions on building new supply (zoning, landmarking, environment impact studies, etc)
- lower home ownership rates pushing more people into the rental market
- long-term inflation
Rents will continue to go up everywhere. The issue is that NYC has some of the highest rents in the U.S., because so many housing units are essentially off the market due to rent regulation. Market-rate tenants are legally prohibited from bidding higher for stabilized units. Therefore, they must all fight for the 39% of rentals that are market rate.
Then why are there tens of thousands of stabilized units that are actually being rented out at below the maximum legal stabilized rent every year in the form of "preferential rents?"
In these instances,the "market rate "rent is actually considerably less than the "stabilized " rent. The landlords are perfectly free to charge more if they could get it but they can't.Some have estimated that almost 50% of the regulated units in the city are rented with "preferential ( discounted)rents".
The idea that stabilized apartments are hard to find or that they are all being squatted in by people who moved to NYC decades ago is laughable.
Location: Formerly NYC by week; ATL by weekend...now Rio bi annually and ATL bi annually
1,522 posts, read 2,244,038 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlem resident
Wealthy people are not necessarily talented or interesting - interesting in the positive sense. Certainly enough of them have serious issues but it isn't quite the same thing.
Most amazing contributions were made by people who came from modest backgrounds.
This is, however, missing my point. To use wealth as an indicator of worth, intelligence, or anything else is simply not smart. To imply this without acknowledging it is even worse. Most of the rent "discussions" here revolve around the assumption that wealth = the best. I wonder how many people here know any actually wealthy people.
Totally agree.....see it daily. And I hate it when one has "purchased" an audience in any arena and think that they have accomplished something.
Location: Formerly NYC by week; ATL by weekend...now Rio bi annually and ATL bi annually
1,522 posts, read 2,244,038 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluttereagle
I am opposed to rent regulation for ethical reasons:
1. Apartment owners should have the right to charge whatever they want for someone to rent their property.
2. Apartment owners should have the right to not renew a tenant's lease (i.e. make them vacate their property).
3. Rent regulation is supposed to be public assistance, but it is not based on need.
4. The state should not be creating a class of citizens (rent-regulated tenants) who have more rights than other citizens.
5. It is unfair to new entrants to the housing market. It forcibly prevents market-rate tenants from bidding higher for stabilized units. For example, I would like to bid higher than $1400 for a stabilized 1-bedroom on the Upper West Side. But I am legally prohibited from doing so. I believe that that is unethical.
1. Incorrect; the market dictates what pricing should be. You can charge more and hope to get the maybe 10% of renters whom fall in love with your product if its a premium. Or you can charge less and hope to have a high demand for your product. Other than that its based on market pricing.
2. For no reason? Absurd. Fortunately there are laws forbidding that.
3. Can you provide a statute dictating this claim? My understanding was that RS was enacted to battle rents rising at exorbitant rates. There has to be affordable housing in every city. This was NYC's answer to those rising rates.
4. The state was helping with supply. The demand has and will always be there.
5. I do not believe so. I am a market rate renter, and think that like HarlemResident said earlier some things are ethically the right thing to do. I make enough money to pay for a market rate apartment. Unfortunately, not all do. If you would like to pay more than 1,400 on the UWS, then you should have no problem finding an apartment whatsoever. You can even come a lil further up to Harlem. We have apartments more expensive than 1,400.
Can you please outline the sequence of events that you think will lead from the dissolution of rent stabilization to the all the upper middle class people getting reduced rent? Do you have any examples of cities where rent controls were abolished and the abolition led to lower rents?
Why, the benevolent "invisible hand" will even everything out.
Here is exactly where things get hazy.
Hope people don't start (misquoting and misparaphrasing) Adam Smith again. Life is a lot more than "what the market can bear" - and Smith himself thought that.
1. Incorrect; the market dictates what pricing should be. You can charge more and hope to get the maybe 10% of renters whom fall in love with your product if its a premium. Or you can charge less and hope to have a high demand for your product. Other than that its based on market pricing.
2. For no reason? Absurd. Fortunately there are laws forbidding that.
3. Can you provide a statute dictating this claim? My understanding was that RS was enacted to battle rents rising at exorbitant rates. There has to be affordable housing in every city. This was NYC's answer to those rising rates.
4. The state was helping with supply. The demand has and will always be there.
5. I do not believe so. I am a market rate renter, and think that like HarlemResident said earlier some things are ethically the right thing to do. I make enough money to pay for a market rate apartment. Unfortunately, not all do. If you would like to pay more than 1,400 on the UWS, then you should have no problem finding an apartment whatsoever. You can even come a lil further up to Harlem. We have apartments more expensive than 1,400.
As do we, and we had more than enough to buy. But I still have an awareness and care about the people who don't. I would also rather live around a diverse group instead of just whoever who can pay $5,000.
I have pointed out that fact about Harlem real estate many times ...
In fact, most everything here is far more than $1,400 at this point. Funny that people don't know that.
Location: Formerly NYC by week; ATL by weekend...now Rio bi annually and ATL bi annually
1,522 posts, read 2,244,038 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlem resident
As do we, and we had more than enough to buy. But I still have an awareness and care about the people who don't. I would also rather live around a diverse group instead of just whoever who can pay $5,000.
I have pointed out that fact about Harlem real estate many times ...
In fact, most everything here is far more than $1,400 at this point. Funny that people don't know that.
Such a typical attitude. Cannot see the real enemy. Sad.
Hint: It's not the single guy in the rent regulated apartment.
What on -earth- are you talking about?
The point was, if you're a LESS than perfect tenant in a city where real estate is at less than 2% availability; you'd drop them like a hat. Some slums in New York are that way because tenants as -renters- have a right to act like garbage.
To me, single guys in rent regulated apartments certainly are the 'enemy'.
I am for equality in a market driven housing market.
Can you please outline the sequence of events that you think will lead from the dissolution of rent stabilization to the all the upper middle class people getting reduced rent? Do you have any examples of cities where rent controls were abolished and the abolition led to lower rents?
Supply and Demand would actually come into effect in Manhattan.
Supply would increase. From a historical standpoint that lowers the commodity of the good.
Less incentive for apartment rent bidding, and more units opening up would allot for rents to balance a bit.
Many buildings would be slated for demo to be replaced by now cost feasible (no buyouts) condos that could house more people, albeit for likely higher rents.
I would wager rents would stabilize for a few years (rather than increase) and in some areas possibly decrease 5-10%.
Few cities stand on record for having decommissioned rent control as Boston did, but even their housing stock and investment in housing increased tremendously while rents rose considerably.
One of the big changes is a shift from individuals having a giant value and security in a lifetime of renting, and the possibility of some deciding to becomes owners themselves, which is often a good savings and tax break over a lifetime.
Every apartment would cost what it's worth.
What's so wrong with that type of system?
It's what 95% of the rest of the country uses.
They're going to live in their neighborhoods knowing if they act inconsiderate, they'll be forced to move at the end of their lease and it will cost them whatever moving costs or forfeit a security deposit.
Hitting someone in the wallet may actually change some of their behavior.
The original NYCHA's, when residents had to maintain neat apartments, pay rent on time, etc., were much better places to live in. Only when the city got rid of behavioral standards and started filling them with scum did they become the mess they are in today. But even today is better than in the 80s as now you can lose your apartment for harboring felons, even if they are your own family.
Well I think rent stabilization will be further weakened if it is renewed. (Still a chance it won't be).
Let's face it on a long term basis the city will want to earn as much money as they can from real estate taxes. No reason for them to keep prices down in prime locations. Particularly as taxes generated from real estate pay for education, transportation, libraries, and government services in general. Whatever they do the state legislature can then go off on their vacation which ends in Jan. of next year.
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.
