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.
Low income people are being placed in far better "affordable housing" digs, a catch being that the current income levels hover around $30,000 - much less than many people, equally disenfranchised in this housing "market" - created and maintained by developers - earn.
A couple or family - or individual, for that matter - earning between, say, $45,000 and $100,000, which is not at all much money here, will increasingly be at a tremendous disadvantage. The mayor has said that he will begin initiatives for this group but I will believe it when I see it.
Rent regulation was founded to prevent gouging by landlords. Obviously, this is still needed. Anyone unable to admit that is either stupid or desperate to spread propaganda that contains a story differing vastly from the truth.
While the regulations were never meant to include a link to income, it is overwhelmingly those people earning between $45,000 and $100,000 - bottom - who are benefiting from regulation.
I will repeat what I have said several times already. Just about everyone who lives in the regulated building owned by whichever scheming sociopath of a landlord or "investment group" would do just about anything to be able to afford something else. I have never heard a different story. Oddly enough, the anti-babblers here actually admit that the regulated buildings tend to be unmaintained. So ... why would people live there without other options.
Oh, right, I forgot, laziness and willing to work on the other guy's dime. Didn't that baloney die out after the 1990s ? And as it was, it was only the rhetoric of resentful lower middle class conservative failures.
Income inequality is obviously a thing, that's likely to exist through the history of the world, and isn't always necessarily a bad thing- and there are many factors at place.
Rental inequality doesn't need to exist, or at least it doesn't need to be supported by the NYS government.
Rent inequality is always going to exist in some form, just like income inequality. And it isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
The city and any other big city will always subsidize minimum wage workers (either through housing, medicaid or food stamps or other assistance).
Rent inequality is always going to exist in some form, just like income inequality. And it isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
The city and any other big city will always subsidize minimum wage workers (either through housing, medicaid or food stamps or other assistance).
I'm not questioning the projects or section 8.
Through RR program, New York City forces subsidies from landlords to a select group of middle class and even some moderately rich people.
That doesn't have to exist, or it could span all renters. Though it's obviously got quite a few more years before it hits the table again. Still I think general referendum and statewide vote will be more likely to undo such a mind bogglingly bad and unjust system.
Low income people are being placed in far better "affordable housing" digs, a catch being that the current income levels hover around $30,000 - much less than many people, equally disenfranchised in this housing "market" - created and maintained by developers - earn.
A couple or family - or individual, for that matter - earning between, say, $45,000 and $100,000, which is not at all much money here, will increasingly be at a tremendous disadvantage. The mayor has said that he will begin initiatives for this group but I will believe it when I see it.
This group of 'Middle Income' earners would represent nearly all new people coming into New York, or leaving their parents homes in search of a place of their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlem resident
Rent regulation was founded to prevent gouging by landlords. Obviously, this is still needed. Anyone unable to admit that is either stupid or desperate to spread propaganda that contains a story differing vastly from the truth.
While the regulations were never meant to include a link to income, it is overwhelmingly those people earning between $45,000 and $100,000 - bottom - who are benefiting from regulation.
... but only SOME people are covered by these regulations.
Gouging still exists, just half the residents in the city are immune from it, and the other half will make up the windfall.
There's no propaganda there. It's clearly an inequitable system.
If the goal is to keep landlords from overcharging residents of NYC, then the system should be broad to cover the entire city (or state as it exists in state law).
In reality RC/RS just keeps a sprinkling of artificial middle class people who cannot move, and who can survive on wages that a majority of newer residents never could. Sure, many of them would like to move up in the world- but they're still at a protected place with some having much more moderate rents then their counterparts.
This group of 'Middle Income' earners would represent nearly all new people coming into New York, or leaving their parents homes in search of a place of their own.
... but only SOME people are covered by these regulations.
Gouging still exists, just half the residents in the city are immune from it, and the other half will make up the windfall.
There's no propaganda there. It's clearly an inequitable system.
If the goal is to keep landlords from overcharging residents of NYC, then the system should be broad to cover the entire city (or state as it exists in state law).
In reality RC/RS just keeps a sprinkling of artificial middle class people who cannot move, and who can survive on wages that a majority of newer residents never could. Sure, many of them would like to move up in the world- but they're still at a protected place with some having much more moderate rents then their counterparts.
It once covered the majority of apartments in NYC. Now rent regulation covers less than half. The percentage of apartments it covers will continue to shrink.
But you know that.
The true goal is to slowly get rid of rent regulation. Neither the landlords nor the city want it done instantly. Having it slowly deregulated preserves high prices. An instant deregulation might result in mass evictions, which might negatively (for the real estate industry) affect real estate prices.
I know you would like mass evictions because it might lower rents in some cases (lots of vacancies at once) but the landlords themselves will fight against that and just keep the rent regulation around in order to slowly deregulate it and therefore keep prices high. Because whenever an area becomes really lot the developers will find ways to end rent stabilization.
Low income people are being placed in far better "affordable housing" digs, a catch being that the current income levels hover around $30,000 - much less than many people, equally disenfranchised in this housing "market" - created and maintained by developers - earn.
A couple or family - or individual, for that matter - earning between, say, $45,000 and $100,000, which is not at all much money here, will increasingly be at a tremendous disadvantage. The mayor has said that he will begin initiatives for this group but I will believe it when I see it.
Rent regulation was founded to prevent gouging by landlords. Obviously, this is still needed. Anyone unable to admit that is either stupid or desperate to spread propaganda that contains a story differing vastly from the truth.
While the regulations were never meant to include a link to income, it is overwhelmingly those people earning between $45,000 and $100,000 - bottom - who are benefiting from regulation.
I will repeat what I have said several times already. Just about everyone who lives in the regulated building owned by whichever scheming sociopath of a landlord or "investment group" would do just about anything to be able to afford something else. I have never heard a different story. Oddly enough, the anti-babblers here actually admit that the regulated buildings tend to be unmaintained. So ... why would people live there without other options.
Oh, right, I forgot, laziness and willing to work on the other guy's dime. Didn't that baloney die out after the 1990s ? And as it was, it was only the rhetoric of resentful lower middle class conservative failures.
You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Supportive housing is for those who need a handup in life (Seniors, Disabled, Homeless). While NY often time does cater to them more than I think is helpful, I can understand on the grounds of compassion why we should have it.
Regular people should play by the rules of the game. Yes, it stinks. I'm not saying I agree with all the changes that are happening, but the fact is the "fair price" of a product is when what person A is willing to pay matches what person B is willing to sell it at. Interfering in this process always results in both distortions and unintended consequences.
You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Supportive housing is for those who need a handup in life (Seniors, Disabled, Homeless). While NY often time does cater to them more than I think is helpful, I can understand on the grounds of compassion why we should have it.
Regular people should play by the rules of the game. Yes, it stinks. I'm not saying I agree with all the changes that are happening, but the fact is the "fair price" of a product is when what person A is willing to pay matches what person B is willing to sell it at. Interfering in this process always results in both distortions and unintended consequences.
Nothing I mentioned is "supportive housing." That is a different topic.
Regular people ARE playing by the rules of the game.
Cannot wait to hear a definition of the term "fair price."
Let me guess ... "fair price" is what the "invisible hand," actually "the hand made invisible," allows.
FYI - "fair price" as a concept is lifted from writings that date from the early 18th century.
A lot of RS landlords in the Bronx, are leasing out the apts to the City for use as a shelter apts for a family. They are getting thousands per month for this. Probably some that are crying starvation on this forum.
Most rent controlled people are dead or in nursing homes. I do know one person that rented a rent control apt in 1969 when he was 20 years old in the UES. "some guys have all the luck....". He is about 65 healthy and still works full time.
Rent control does not affect people that live in Market rate buildings, or the tax payers as one poster claims. It does affect the landlord obviously. But the name of the game is buy the building, try to break even, or even suffer a loss every year, either way it will help your taxes. You actually don't want to have to report extra income while you are fairly young. Then after about 30 years lie to someone, like you were lied to and make a big profit on the sale. Then retire and get out of NYC. It is an investment. But it is smart to cry starvation now, that way family and friends won't try to borrow money from you.
If rent control ended tomorrow, they would create some other tax law that would take more money from the landlord another way.
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.
