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.
Exactly, which is one of the reasons I think the SCOTUS will eventually throw out all rental regulation laws as a violation of constitutionally protected private property rights.
Not quite the deal when you agree to a contract to do something with that property …..unless the building was pre late 1970s they didn’t have to be stabilized….
In fact even if it was pre the end of stabilization, they could have taken it coop like most pre late 1970s building did to get out from under stabilization eventually .
So this is just contract law someone agreed to for the most part in exchange for the price they paid , the deals they got or the program benefits.
Today most of the programs that came after stabilization ended in the 1970s , end stabilization when you stop taking advantage of the perks or the time limit hits.
No different then any other business contracts one enters in to ..which is why it has very little to do with scotus. If anything parts of it is state determined.
———————————————-
“In New York City, apartments are under rent stabilization if they are in buildings of six or more units built between February 1, 1947, and December 31, 1973.
Tenants in buildings built before February 1, 1947, who moved in after June 30, 1971, are also covered by rent stabilization.
A third category of rent stabilized apartments covers buildings with three or more apartments constructed or extensively renovated on or after January 1, 1974 with special tax benefits.
Generally, those buildings are only subject to stabilization while the tax benefits continue or, in some cases, until the tenant vacates.
So from 1974 on you no longer had to be stabilized ,if building it was voluntary only know one did without the perks.
I don’t agree with some of the older buildings having guaranteed renewals forever and succession rights…but nyc is a very pro tenant state and most renters across the board are not as affluent as owners of homes so we may not see this changed much if at all
Last edited by mathjak107; 10-29-2022 at 08:14 AM..
one of the problems with guraranteed renewal is you have to keep in mind is most stabilized buildings are all commercial ventures and owned for the most part by corporations, LLC ‘s , etc which are non human in the eyes of the law .
Which is why any apartments owned by corporations, or LLC’s can not have any owners take apartments for themselves If stabilized and occupied like they could if held in personal name .
Corporations and LLC’s don’t have kids or family in the eyes of the law
No reasonable person is going to hold an apartment building in their own name for liability reasons .
A partnership in personal name can have one apartment in total taken no matter how many partners
So the mere fact is these are housing machines held by non humans so to speak .
As long as tenant x does not break the lease terms then they are the same for tenant x as replacing tenant x with tenant y as you know if you didnt have guaranteed renewal you can bet the next tenant would not be allowed at an increase from turnover
Last edited by mathjak107; 10-29-2022 at 09:01 AM..
A Ron Paul supporter due to fiscal responsibility and small government who partakes in all manner of government subsidies in the largest "big government" city in the US. It's a perfect encapsulation of modern day NYC. I couldn't even make this up.
“All government subsidies” I do not qualify for. I wish I qualified for the unaudited blank checks Zelensky does tho.
The stabilized market place is over half the rentals out there so your 95% of renters don’t benefit is nonsense
it’s catch 22 ..
There were no rentals built for decades and there was no rent stabilization required since the late 1970s ….so if they didn’t bring back optional stabilization and the required deals to get developers and owners back we would have a rental shortage today worse then we do effecting the markets even more.
It is amazing to think we went decades without one pure rental building being built open to all.
Only affordable housing and lower income were put up in rentals ..coops and condos were the rest of what was built for decades along with luxury rentals costing thousands a month and we’ll above the limits for being stabilized.
So it was apparent something had to be done to get developers back and if you are going to give them perks and deals they felt they may as well tie it in to some kind of rent stabilization even if they are allowed to go to market at full market rents and agree to abide by the boards increases yearly going forward .
Good or bad this is how we got rentals built again
It's not nonsense. Yes, half of all apartments in NYC are RS. That doesn't mean all RS tenants benefit. You have to take into account the negative externalities that the RS market has created in NYC over the decades.
The fact that it takes subsidy programs to get developers to build in the largest rental market in NYC should be proof enough.
Similar rules have been run up the judicial flagpole before, all the way to the SCOTUS, and been upheld.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfc99
Exactly, which is one of the reasons I think the SCOTUS will eventually throw out all rental regulation laws as a violation of constitutionally protected private property rights.
It's not nonsense. Yes, half of all apartments in NYC are RS. That doesn't mean all RS tenants benefit. You have to take into account the negative externalities that the RS market has created in NYC over the decades.
The fact that it takes subsidy programs to get developers to build in the largest rental market in NYC should be proof enough.
Well rent stabilization originally sucked for landlords so developers stayed away until they made it lucrative enough .
It’s like trying to put the lid back on a can of tuna .
The situation was created and now we have to play the cards we are dealt .
Like everything in life, life is never fair …some benefit , some don’t …that is true in all walks of life . We all pay different taxes too on earning the same amount of money as tax breaks are given to home owners or those with Kids or even have the bad luck of having medical bills .
Aca subsidies
The wealthy keeping taxable income low enough to get Medicaid health insurance, we have some right in city data that do this
How about spouses who get social security and never worked ..
There are loads of things where one benefits and one doesn’t
Get over it
Last edited by mathjak107; 10-30-2022 at 04:16 AM..
Not quite the deal when you agree to a contract to do something with that property …..unless the building was pre late 1970s they didn’t have to be stabilized….
In fact even if it was pre the end of stabilization, they could have taken it coop like most pre late 1970s building did to get out from under stabilization eventually .
So this is just contract law someone agreed to for the most part in exchange for the price they paid , the deals they got or the program benefits.
Today most of the programs that came after stabilization ended in the 1970s , end stabilization when you stop taking advantage of the perks or the time limit hits.
No different then any other business contracts one enters in to ..which is why it has very little to do with scotus. If anything parts of it is state determined.
———————————————-
“In New York City, apartments are under rent stabilization if they are in buildings of six or more units built between February 1, 1947, and December 31, 1973.
Tenants in buildings built before February 1, 1947, who moved in after June 30, 1971, are also covered by rent stabilization.
A third category of rent stabilized apartments covers buildings with three or more apartments constructed or extensively renovated on or after January 1, 1974 with special tax benefits.
Generally, those buildings are only subject to stabilization while the tax benefits continue or, in some cases, until the tenant vacates.
So from 1974 on you no longer had to be stabilized ,if building it was voluntary only know one did without the perks.
I don’t agree with some of the older buildings having guaranteed renewals forever and succession rights…but nyc is a very pro tenant state and most renters across the board are not as affluent as owners of homes so we may not see this changed much if at all
People don’t realize that these landlords knew what they were getting into & literally signed up for it. That’s the disconnect here
We can debate foreign policy if you wish but don't lump in everything together to obfuscate the truth.
The truth that you’re obfuscating is that you see affordable housing folks as low lives who “suck the system dry” but you fail to acknowledge that NYC spends most of its money on CUNY education, retirement and pension plans. But even if NYC were to spend a sizable budget on affordable housing, who cares? It’s a good cause.
I don’t complain about spending on education or retirement plans either. All of the people benefiting from these programs have paid their taxes - unlike those from overseas (who use our tax money to bloody the killing fields and further enrich the military industrial complex) and who haven’t contributed monetarily at all nor will they ever contribute.
Well rent stabilization originally sucked for landlords so developers stayed away until they made it lucrative enough .
It’s like trying to put the lid back on a can of tuna .
The situation was created and now we have to play the cards we are dealt .
Like everything in life, life is never fair …some benefit , some don’t …that is true in all walks of life . We all pay different taxes too on earning the same amount of money as tax breaks are given to home owners or those with Kids or even have the bad luck of having medical bills .
Aca subsidies
The wealthy keeping taxable income low enough to get Medicaid health insurance, we have some right in city data that do this
How about spouses who get social security and never worked ..
There are loads of things where one benefits and one doesn’t
Get over it
None of what you stated is relevant. It's all excuses made to maintain the status quo by the same corrupt politicians and some entrenched market participants year after year and decade after decade. No different than than the trite stupidity that we har from the MTA year after year about why they're a terribly inefficient and mis-managed organization.
The issue now is that they've so thoroughly screwed up the market that it would take decades to unwind. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. There is no reason why there can't be a healthy housing market in NYC.
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.
