NYC Rent Guidelines Board Vote 2015 (New York, York: renters, health insurance, condo)
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.
I'm not inherently opposed to rent control, but there are some outrageous examples of just sheer stupidity/rules that promote laziness/gross unfairness to taxpayers/landlords.
For instance, consider this little nugget from the NYT article on the subject:
About 60 percent of all rent stabilized units are affected by each year’s vote because not all tenants renew their leases every year, largely because they are in the second year of two-year leases. The mayor’s office estimated that number at 630,000 apartments housing more than 1.2 million tenants.
One of these tenants, Soledad Franco, 53, said that half of her income goes to pay her $1,122 monthly rent and utilities for a four-bedroom apartment in the Bronx she shares with her mother, three adult children and a grandson.
"This will help me a lot," said Ms. Franco, an account manager at a shredding company.
A landlord should be able to lawfully demand more than $1,122 (and, note, the rent is probably closer to $900 per month as the $1,122 figure includes utilities) in rent for a four bedroom apartment shared by 4-5 grown adults! That is insanity. Soledad Franco, and her 3 grown children (I can't really pick on the grandmother as she is likely elderly), should be ashamed of themselves.
At some point these guidelines decisions will come back to bite them in the ass. Inflation is not 0%, and even if fuel went down 21% landlords did not get a proportional increase as those fuel costs went up previous years. The board is saying to landlords: "YOU CANNOT GET COMPENSATED FOR RISING COSTS".
Sounds like a major lawsuit waiting to happen. The courts have foolishly let price controls stand in the past but this rises to the level of stealing from owners and taking away their assets. It is government theft of property and completely unacceptable
At some point these guidelines decisions will come back to bite them in the ass. Inflation is not 0%, and even if fuel went down 21% landlords did not get a proportional increase as those fuel costs went up previous years. The board is saying to landlords: "YOU CANNOT GET COMPENSATED FOR RISING COSTS".
Absolutely agree. People need to cast the predatory energies elsewhere and chose investments other than multi-family buildings in New York.
Hey, I heard there were some things for sale in Greece, although people might find those citizens to be tougher customers than one might have anticipated. Good for them.
The much-touted "invisible hand" has moved. People would need to be really stupid not to read that writing on the wall but I have met quite few intelligent real estate investors. What little they do have going on is eradicated by the sheer presence of glittering dollar signs and the presence of potential "assets." Unfortunately these have also blinded them to the fact that things are changing.
Sounds like a major lawsuit waiting to happen. The courts have foolishly let price controls stand in the past but this rises to the level of stealing from owners and taking away their assets. It is government theft of property and completely unacceptable
Imo it is good that the gap between RS rents and actual rents is growing. It will just mean the demise of the whole program sooner than later. Remember, the whole thing exists only because some LLs are signed up to it and get certain perks from the city. Once the gap becomes big enough a lot of landlords would just cash out and sell their properties to developers who build at market rate.
Imo it is good that the gap between RS rents and actual rents is growing. It will just mean the demise of the whole program sooner than later. Remember, the whole thing exists only because some LLs are signed up to it. Once the gap becomes big enough a lot of landlords would just sell their properties to developers who build at market rate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but its my understanding that developers (or the current landlords) would not have the choice to simply build at market rate. If they did, many landlords would have already sold their RS buildings for handsome profits or would already be converting to market rate. No, it is my understanding that the law severely limits what a landlord can do to their properties, etc.
Quite frankly, there will always be someone willing to own those buildings. However, with the increasing gap between RS rents and actual rents and increasing expenses, this doesn't bode well for residents expecting somewhat decent service/repairs from their landlords.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but its my understanding that developers (or the current landlords) would not have the choice to simply build at market rate.
Of course, exactly.
I did not even bother to respond to that.
The smoke that is created with different finanglings and underhandedness is being dealt with by the many community groups who are educating people, the tenants themselves. As someone else pointed out, it is the case in too many instances that tenants themselves are not doing what they should.
I have watched the desperate propaganda spinning here with amusement. Anyone involved in law making attends at least a few of the great number of committee meetings where families (for example) show up to talk about the importance of rent regulation for them, and the burden of unchecked predatory real estate speculation for neighborhoods. I know this because I often attend meetings where funding for schools and whatever else, neighborhood policing, AND rent regulation are discussed.
Point is ... to imagine that "Albany" would heed some random (and usually quite uninformed) comments here rather than the considerable number of people who show up to voice their concerns and opinions at meetings ... please. The tendentiousness is so obvious as well. I doubt that most of these people, who coincidentally signed up for accounts in January, even live here. Most of the investors don't.
I think the "troll for pay" is a plausible scenario. But - a big one - people in law-making positions just aren't that stupid, and they have the whole picture. Even I have a pretty good idea how much trust-funder-with-lease is actually going on, and that's just from proximity; living here.
Last edited by Harlem resident; 06-30-2015 at 08:59 AM..
We must help these poor landlords, living way out in Great Neck in squalor and all.
You forgot to express your sympathy for the oh sooo poor rent-stabilized tenants who's income is in the hundreds of thousands, and paying a dirt cheap rent in prime Manhattan. Of course there aren't a huge number of these tenants, but there shouldn't be any. Yet the rent system allows it.
I have asked you several times previously on another thread about this huge gap in the rent laws which permit this ridiculous give-away to the rich, and you have refused to answer. That's called HYPOCRISY. And you are what's called a HYPOCRITE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
With or without rent regulation landlords in prime parts of town are still going to sell to developers who are building condominiums. There's huge interest in buying condos in NYC and the market will deliver.
The part of my post to which you responded read:
"The result of the pro-rent regulation changes on both the city and state levels will result in a decrease in housing quality and eventually a decrease in the quantity of rental housing as owners sell their failing buildings to developers. Those developers will empty the building of its rental apartments and reconstruct to luxury condos. That decreases the supply of rental apartments and thus raises rents for free-market apartments."
Notice the part now in bold.
Of course there are always sales to developers. My point is that the unprecedented policy of the DeBlasio-controlled RGB which gives zero or minuscule rent increases and the recent changes at the state level which significantly reduce the owners ability to increase rent, even as expenses continue to rise, will hasten, aggravate, and intensify the number of sales to developers, which results in a loss of rental apartments, a decrease in supply of rental apartments, and thus an increase in market rents.
The rent system adversely effects non-stabilized tenants as well as owners.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but its my understanding that developers (or the current landlords) would not have the choice to simply build at market rate. If they did, many landlords would have already sold their RS buildings for handsome profits or would already be converting to market rate. No, it is my understanding that the law severely limits what a landlord can do to their properties, etc.
Yes it is true you can't simply get rid of the tenants, but there are ways. For example, provide just the minimal maintenance on the building and let it fall into disrepair, or in the last case scenario just buy-out the tenants out of their leases (whats going on in prime areas right now where the gap in rents is very wide and it makes financial sense). In any way, if there is enough money in it, there are always ways to cash out. The people like Harlem resident, who act like its their God-given right to live on someone else's property in the most expensive city in the US and pay below market rates are gonna be in for a rude awakening in the long run.
People are quite literally foaming at the mouth !
Interesting.
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.
