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 did. But I couldn't do it right away for many reasons; moving is a complicated thing. But that wasn't my point in this thread. My point was; the regulations that are "draconian" don't apply to a lot of the housing stock in NYC.
I'm saying that almost ALL the Draconian laws you refer to, do not apply to private landlords. A good percentage of NYC housing is in two and three story houses; none of which are subject to rent regulations and the laws accompanying them. Why are you deliberately misunderstanding that. Your pro-capitalist (eg: pro Crony Capitalists) point of view does not support your assertion.
Two and three family housing is not high end. They are small mom and pop landlords providing housing for the lower end of the housing market. You flip flop argument as it suit you without very little regards for facts.
The one thing I would do is end all city real estate tax abatement. This way the unoccupied units will be paying their full RE tax load.
There are a lot of affordable housing units tied to those tax abatement programs. For example, 421a has over 5,000 affordable housing units tied to it... they would have to go market rate.
I don't mind getting rid of tax abatements, but then real estate developers would just build everything market rate.
Two and three family housing is not high end. They are small mom and pop landlords providing housing for the lower end of the housing market. You flip flop argument as it suit you without very little regards for facts.
I never said small housing was high end. I said many high end for example but did not ever say it was exclusive to high end. That was something you chose to believe because it doesn't suit your flimsy argument which is not about reality but about pontificating your conservative politics.
I'm saying that almost ALL the Draconian laws you refer to, do not apply to private landlords. A good percentage of NYC housing is in two and three story houses; none of which are subject to rent regulations and the laws accompanying them. Why are you deliberately misunderstanding that. Your pro-capitalist (eg: pro Crony Capitalists) point of view does not support your assertion.
Landlord-tenant laws apply to all landlords and tenants regardless if they are one story or 100 hundred stories or market rate or rent regulated. You are clueless and ridiculous.
NYC favors tenants over landlords. Tenants can violate their lease based on any number of phony reasons and they can delay eviction for months and years without paying one cent of rent. The NYC court system is loaded with liberal judges that are looking out for the tenants.
You are just a liberal denier, i.e. denying that the liberal laws are ridiculously liberal.
And now you go silent on your silly paint claim because even you now realize how ridiculous that was.
At which point they'd flood the market rate market and rents would come down. Now get rid of rent regulation, and a lot of units would turn over. Yes, the people with ancient rent stabilized deals would have to move, but market rate rents would come down even further, and we'd end up with the properly functioning real estate market NYC has never had (specifically because of the massive government interference with the real estate market.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba
I never said small housing was high end. I said many high end for example but did not ever say it was exclusive to high end. That was something you chose to believe because it doesn't suit your flimsy argument which is not about reality but about pontificating your conservative politics.
Landlord-tenant laws apply to all landlords and tenants regardless if they are one story or 100 hundred stories or market rate or rent regulated. You are clueless and ridiculous.
There is no law that requires non-rent-regulated apartments to be painted every three years or upon each change of tenant, FOR EXAMPLE. There are many, many laws like this that do not apply. Therefore you exaggerate the Draconian rules.
Quote:
NYC favors tenants over landlords. Tenants can violate their lease based on any number of phony reasons and they can delay eviction for months and years without paying one cent of rent. The NYC court system is loaded with liberal judges that are looking out for the tenants.
Yes, it is hard to get people out of an apartment for months. I'm sure that is the one you are really speaking about.
It also takes months and months and months to get a landlord to provide heat or water when he's in violation of the law.
Quote:
You are just a liberal denier, i.e. denying that the liberal laws are ridiculously liberal.
At which point they'd flood the market rate market and rents would come down. Now get rid of rent regulation, and a lot of units would turn over. Yes, the people with ancient rent stabilized deals would have to move, but market rate rents would come down even further, and we'd end up with the properly functioning real estate market NYC has never had (specifically because of the massive government interference with the real estate market.)
I have made this argument myself with the idea that if the vacancy rate was larger, there would be more apartment stock and hence the prices would levelize and go down.
However, Boston and Cambridge deregulated their housing. Within five years, rents increased across the board. The shabbier apartments, the bastion of the lower and middle classes were fixed up, and the rents increased there too and there never was a market for high salaried people clammering for lower end apartments. So rather than housing leveling out and becoming more affordable for all, it ended up costing more across the board. A lot of regulated apartments (in NYC) have been upgraded and are close to market rent now. I think there should be means testing for sure. But I don't think dumping on the poor and middle class is going to solve the housing crisis in NYC. Anyone whose reasoning gravitates in that direction without looking at all the OTHER reasons for inflated prices are not looking at the problem from a reasoned point of view, but an ideological one.
The city and its homes increasingly being leveraged primarily as investment assets does not seem like sensible policy. The argument that NYC should have its economy and real estate more and more geared towards being a lockbox for investment rather than pouring into actual work and innovation sounds astoundingly short-sighted to me.
these buildings are largely designed, engineered, and built by firms located here in NY....by workers who reside in the tri-state area. These are not retail or fast food "jobs". By and large these are well paying jobs that allow people to live relatively comfortably and raise families here.
There are two different rent metrics, average rent, and what I call marginal rent.
Average rent is easy. Take all the rents add them up divide by the number of units. You can break this down by number of bedrooms or overall rooms, etc.. If rent regulation were removed, this would likely go up, since there still a lot of well below market rate regulated rentals. Those rents would be raised. There are a lot of people in those regulated rentals who can only afford to live in NYC because of them. I'm sorry, but I don't feel that these people should be essentially subsidized by the property owners, and by extension, the unregulated renters, and the city as a whole.
Marginal rent is what you would have to pay if you needed to rent a new apartment now. The NYC rental market is usually very tight, mostly because a large number of units are held off the market artificially because of regulation. If regulation went away, a lot of these units would end up on the market. Also, regulation retards the ability to replace older, smaller buildings with larger ones with more units. Even with regulation, we're seeing new capacity coming on the market, mostly in formerly industrial areas where dealing with regulated renters isn't an issue (look at LIC.) This is already pushing down marginal rents at the top of the market. So removing regulation would accelerate the drop in marginal rents, and spread the drop to lower market segments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba
I have made this argument myself with the idea that if the vacancy rate was larger, there would be more apartment stock and hence the prices would levelize and go down.
However, Boston and Cambridge deregulated their housing. Within five years, rents increased across the board. The shabbier apartments, the bastion of the lower and middle classes were fixed up, and the rents increased there too and there never was a market for high salaried people clammering for lower end apartments. So rather than housing leveling out and becoming more affordable for all, it ended up costing more across the board. A lot of regulated apartments (in NYC) have been upgraded and are close to market rent now. I think there should be means testing for sure. But I don't think dumping on the poor and middle class is going to solve the housing crisis in NYC. Anyone whose reasoning gravitates in that direction without looking at all the OTHER reasons for inflated prices are not looking at the problem from a reasoned point of view, but an ideological one.
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.
