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.
- make over 100k a year living in RS apartments
- pay $500 to live in the most expensive neighborhoods in Manhattan
- have 4 grown able-bodied adults (where only 1 person works) paying only $1.2k for a 4 bedroom in the Bronx
I am sorry, I have no sympathy for these people at all. Elderly or disabled/unable to work, yes I agree they need help. The rest of these people, weed 'em out and kick them out. The fact that you can't screen income of RS tenants (or kick them out based on income) is ridiculous. The fact that you can "inherit" these apartments is ridiculous too.
As a side note, I am also against food stamps paying for soda or potato chips or other junk food. Food stamps should be for what they are meant for: make sure people don't starve/have enough money for a good/balanced and healthy diet. If you want soda (or anything else recreational), sure no problem, just pay with your own money for it, not with my money.
And what about the people who live in ok but not great neighborhood in the boro's who have a RS apartment and simply have careers that don't make them much money. People who make 20-35K a year can't afford the increasing costs of the city.
- make over 100k a year living in RS apartments
- pay $500 to live in the most expensive neighborhoods in Manhattan
- have 4 grown able-bodied adults (where only 1 person works) paying only $1.2k for a 4 bedroom in the Bronx
I am sorry, I have no sympathy for these people at all. Elderly or disabled/unable to work, yes I agree they need help. The rest of these people, weed 'em out and kick them out. The fact that you can't screen income of RS tenants (or kick them out based on income) is ridiculous. The fact that you can "inherit" these apartments is ridiculous too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlem resident
Not always a good idea, and never a good idea in a sheep year - or so my global investment banker neighbor from Shanghai tells me.
Gantz,
The RR laws allow tenants to take advantage of the system no matter what their income is. That's why the RS tenant lobby so vehemently opposes income verification. It's a huge hole in the system which the politicians, because they are politicians, refuse to close even though they are aware of the unfairness and inequity of the law.
The person who "responded" to your point, a person who is extremely active on all threads regarding the rent system, sees it as simply a case of class warfare. On one side all poor tenants. On the other all rich, big, evil, greedy landlords. He or she will ignore any post, such as yours, which contradicts this ideological view. High RS tenant income means nothing to this extreme rent control advocate.
It's not RS tenants (poor or rich) vs. landlords. It's RS tenants vs. market rate tenants, landlords, and all city and state tax payers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW
The Republicans gave away the store on the rent regulation renewal. They should have demanded that the vacancy decontrol threshold drop back to $2,000, impose a minimum increase of the lesser of 2%/4% or the percentage increase of the average of property taxes and water/sewer rates.
You're right that they gave away the store. But it's MUCH more than just the headline number of the vacancy decontrol threshold. It's reductions in rent increases for apartment improvements, building improvements, and most of all, a complicated and extensive set of reductions in vacancy increases.
They caved in to pressure from Cuomo who threatened upstate Republicans to disallow a property tax cap, an issue very important to them, if they blocked Cuomo's pro-rent control agenda.
On your second point, which refers to the percentage increase in rent, that is not a state prerogative. That is, very unfortunately, the prerogative of the DeBlasio-controlled RGB, which yesterday awarded owners a zero annual increase. That board would NEVER even consider tying the rent increase to owner's increase in expenses. Heaven forbid!
So owners are caught in a squeeze between DeBozo in the city and Mario in Albany. Things will continue in a downward spiral for the city's housing stock until they're gone. Looks downright grim.
And what about the people who live in ok but not great neighborhood in the boro's who have a RS apartment and simply have careers that don't make them much money. People who make 20-35K a year can't afford the increasing costs of the city.
No one is owed living in NYC. It's not a "right". I co-sign with others that when we're talking about people who need a hand up in life, that's different. If you think about it, we're really subsidizing the big corporations and businesses who can pay people less if they believe the welfare state will pick up the tab.
It's not RS tenants (poor or rich) vs. landlords. It's RS tenants vs. market rate tenants, landlords, and all city and state tax payers.
100% agree. It's clear the zealots against this will continue their track, power to them.
If they truly believe in their cause they should advocate for RC/RS to be applied to all units in the city, regardless of income, rent, race, religion, etc.
Maybe one day reform may come. In the interim, some tenants of NYC will enjoy a 0% increase while other tenants of NYC take double digit increases.
Each a New Yorker. Just two completely different sets of rules.
It is an urban myth. I simply have not found this to be true - and this is not from reading statistics or anything else, but from knowing many many people for just as many years. I have definitely encountered people who had no business in regulated apartments but over the last ten years most of those, and there not even so many, are long gone. They took buyouts and got tired of dealing with predatory investment groups looking to develop "luxury" housing.
Taking buyouts, IS, taking advantage. Tenants have a right to be renewed and they are sitting on a commodity they don't own that's worth something to someone else. Predatory Investment groups knew the cost and paid it out. To recover that costs in their investment, they have to increase either rents in the building they put in or cost of those condos. These are market rate tenants or owners ultimately paying out that buyout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlem resident
Moreover, there are not so many interesting people who want to live downtown anymore. Only silly and young transplants. Interesting life has dwindled there for that reason, although the branding machine does continue to insist on this long-gone vitality. Everyone else is only there because the situation works for them for whatever reason. There isn't any "New York" left, just an empty commodity object.
I feel you use the term transplants as a thinly veiled term masking some other deep disdain. 'Interesting Life' is tougher when people work 60 hours a week, or all but the highest paid professions can live in an area. That's the new, New York City. It is, at the end of the day a place that replaced New Amsterdam. It is an empty commodity, until it's filled with people and businesses, and then it becomes a city.
It isn't an entitled way of life, but politicians may have sold that to you.
I feel you use the term transplants as a thinly veiled term masking some other deep disdain.
I assure you that none of my disdain is veiled in any way whatsoever.
Speaking of which. I had a huge laugh at this person above - "active on rent stabilization threads ..." - in fact, I am active on many threads, anything within my field of experience here.
Conversely, that same person has, indeed, posted exclusively on rent regulations.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Perhaps the raise for per diem will not be forthcoming unless the propaganda "worked." What can we do.
The desperation is ... interesting. And very entertaining !
Especially the part where people actually believe that a regulated tenant is robbing the taxpayers rather than the considerable number of landlords who pay no property taxes.
Wishing for a bridge I could sell.
I assure you that none of my disdain is veiled in any way whatsoever.
Speaking of which. I had a huge laugh at this person above - "active on rent stabilization threads ..." - in fact, I am active on many threads, anything within my field of experience here.
Conversely, that same person has, indeed, posted exclusively on rent regulations.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Perhaps the raise for per diem will not be forthcoming unless the propaganda "worked." What can we do.
The desperation is ... interesting. And very entertaining !
Especially the part where people actually believe that a regulated tenant is robbing the taxpayers rather than the considerable number of landlords who pay no property taxes.
Wishing for a bridge I could sell.
You talk a lot about the posters of threads but rarely the topic at hand.
Once again, you put Landlord vs. Regulated Tenant.
It's the unregulated tenant who has the least of all.
Landlords who pay no taxes, means less city taxes to go around- which means increases on all residents, regulated or not.
The sheer disdain for landlords on here is understandable, given my history living in New York and dealing with my own. However, let it be known, you can move at any time.
People who are wealthy or who own property can live in NY has long as they please. Those making 20k-25k are in below market housing. Whether 80/20, rent stabilized units, housing projects, or whatever.
It's really the working class/lower middle class person who has to worry about moving NYC, especially if they are working class retirees (these people typically get no retirement benefits beyond social security).
But moving for poor and working class people is not necessarily a solution. It's going to cost money to live anywhere in the US and try making 20k a year, finding housing, AND PAYING for a car and car related expenses.
At least NYC has CHEAP public transportation.
A poor person moving out of NYC to another place doesn't magically make them middle class.
Those poor enough to qualify for government subsidies often will not move because NY is more generous in it's subsidies than many other states, and the city's excellent public transportation network in and of itself is a HUGE subsidy.
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.
