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.
Part of the reason why landlords here have to charge high rents is not only because of a supply and demand issue, but because of high property taxes. Politicians in Albany set the taxes in New York City. It is also those politicians who tell landlords, "If you give that girl an apartment for $3,000 instead of $6,000 a month, you will get a huge tax rebate." The landlord therefore takes the opportunity as in, "If you're going to give it to me, then I'll take it" and receives enough subsidy that they're able to not only make a profit, but build more property on underutilized land.
So if anyone is taking advantage of the tax system, it is the landlord. But again, I don't blame them because property taxes in this State are out of control. The taller the building and more units, offices and amenities it has, the higher the taxes.
Call it what you want to make yourself feel better. It doesn't change the facts on the ground.
It's clear that you contort reality to fit whatever narrative works for you evidenced by the fact that you're a "big fan" of Ron Paul yet indulge in big government. It's quite hilarious actually. It's like a KKK member being a "big fan" of Frederick Douglass.
Who are you kidding? If Ron Paul ran for mayor of NYC tomorrow but promised to kick you out of your affordable housing unit, you'd be the first one to vote for the Social Democrats.
On this topic, mathjak actually has the experience, and therefore the knowledge. I don't know why certain people here keep arguing with him when they have no experience on the topic. They should just admit they're wrong and move on.
People who benefit from the largest tax breaks and benefits are actually corporations, banks, Zelensky, NYS retirees with their lucrative retirement packages, CUNY students and affordable housing landlords. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but it's the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilmoregal
"On this topic, mathjak actually has the experience, and therefore the knowledge."
I'm wondering the same thing. Takes a special kind of personality to argue with someone who has clearly more knowledge & personal experience with a topic when you have zero....
Firstly, his experience is in RS co-ops. Not that it matters in this case but just goes to show the attention to detail of the welfare class.
No one is arguing with his experience of making a few dollars from flipping a few RS co-ops. He takes that experience and parlays it into a clearly asinine argument that without RS, the NYC rental market wouldn't exist. That's after admitting that the city so screwed LL's in the 70's with the initial RS program that it derailed rental construction in the first place.
He approaches it from a LL perspective which is something that he's told over and over again isn't the argument. We all understand that the current perverted market obviously benefits some in the entrenched RE industry (and some tenants). He argues that LL's shouldn't complain about being in the RS program. I agree with him. That's not the point at all though.
I can only surmise that he clearly likes to tell everybody he's made a few dollars from flipping co-ops so he goes on his banal screed over and over while ignoring the gist of the argument. This guy likes to mention his "business exploits" more than Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos.
Look at it this way. It's like EV manufacturers arguing that EV subsidies are great and without them EV's would never be built. It's the same with this guy.
Call it what you want to make yourself feel better. It doesn't change the facts on the ground.
It's clear that you contort reality to fit whatever narrative works for you evidenced by the fact that you're a "big fan" of Ron Paul yet indulge in big government. It's quite hilarious actually. It's like a KKK member being a "big fan" of Frederick Douglass.
Who are you kidding? If Ron Paul ran for mayor of NYC tomorrow but promised to kick you out of your affordable housing unit, you'd be the first one to vote for the Social Democrats .
You’re not only dead wrong but you’re projecting: I’m sure you’re the one sh*tting bricks Republicans may take over. The blank checks the welfare king Zelensky is getting will then be no more.
By the way, you come across as very narrow minded. Do you actually think that all Democrats are ANTIFA and that all MAGAs are so called racists? You are an example of a person who boxes everyone. I like to think in grid - not everyone is the same but is shaped by life experience.
So it turns out that the real estate developer, “Vornado” cancelled or is delaying its plans to build commercial skyscrapers in the Penn Station area. (Smart idea since many offices sit empty). But here’s something interesting I found:
”Critics say the Penn project would provide tax breaks for Vornado and enrich the company without sufficiently guaranteeing to create a new train station, which is the project’s supposed rationale.”
Your premise that rents will come down if stabilization totally went away is just false .
Boston is a prime example .
Rents went up for everyone and never looked back
Landlords and developers seem to be benefiting from stabilization and at least half of all rentals seem to be benefiting …
In the end it seems like much ado about nothing when it comes to stabilization..
It seems it’s the jealous outsiders that have nothing to do with stabilization either as a landlord or tenant that complain the most about it.
Yet with it or with out stabilization nothing will change for them and if anything ,have their rents go higher as apartment rents in buildings rise it will float all rents upward ..
Exacly what boston saw happen when they did away with stabilization
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-02-2022 at 02:04 AM..
I highly doubt NYC will get rid of it. The 421-a is another form of rent stabilization that is used for affordable housing. It’ expired in June & they are releasing a new one under a new name in December. As long as developers need incentive to build housing there will be some form of rent stabilization.
You’re not only dead wrong but you’re projecting: I’m sure you’re the one sh*tting bricks Republicans may take over. The blank checks the welfare king Zelensky is getting will then be no more.
By the way, you come across as very narrow minded. Do you actually think that all Democrats are ANTIFA and that all MAGAs are so called racists? You are an example of a person who boxes everyone. I like to think in grid - not everyone is the same but is shaped by life experience.
You pulled a Hochul and didn’t respond to question; just started spouting something about MAGA, ANTIFA, the Russo-Ukrainian war.
If Ron Paul was running in NYC and promised to get rid of the affordable housing program (and all existing rentals), would you vote for him? We all know the answer and I’m not blaming you for it. Just don’t pretend to believe in a philosophy you clearly oppose in your actual day to day actions.
Do you understand how absurd it is to claim tobe a fan of Ron Paul yet advocate for the exact thing that he was oppposed to at the core of his political philosophy?
Your premise that rents will come down if stabilization totally went away is just false .
Boston is a prime example .
Rents went up for everyone and never looked back
Landlords and developers seem to be benefiting from stabilization and at least half of all rentals seem to be benefiting …
In the end it seems like much ado about nothing when it comes to stabilization..
It seems it’s the jealous outsiders that have nothing to do with stabilization either as a landlord or tenant that complain the most about it.
Yet with it or with out stabilization nothing will change for them and if anything ,have their rents go higher as apartment rents in buildings rise it will float all rents upward ..
Exacly what boston saw happen when they did away with stabilization
My premise isn’t that rents will come down. My premise is that a healthier market (in the long term) is a free market. Along with zoning reform.
Your premise is that it is not. If your premise is correct, let’s just scarp the entire US economic system.
Your argument is absurd. It’s simply impossible for it to be correct.
I’m not involved in RS this or that but reverting to claiming “ jealous outsiders” is a sign of a weak mind.
For me, RS is part of the larger issue in NYC of politicians meddling in things they shouldn’t to buy votes and run their version of politics.
I don’t know if what you’re saying about Boston is true but I’d surmise there’s much more to the story than you’re letting on. Lay out some facts about the Boston market. Did Boston reform zoning along with scrapping RS? Did Boston start to receive higher tax revenues due to an influx of higher earners who took over from lower earners? Did Bostons QOL improve to a change in the profile of renters?
Your supposition that government need to institute heavy control over the largest housing market in the US in order for it to function correctly is flat out asinine. If it’s true, we have to scrap the entire economic system in the US.
The reality of any market with the heavy hand of government interference is that a small group of individuals benefit while a far larger group is negatively impacted. Just because you benefited from the government interference doesn’t mean that interference is necessary.
I work for two employers due to work from home. I personally benefit greatly from this arrangement. However, I realize that it’s not a positive for my employers nor is work from home in general. Just because something benefits me personally, doesn’t make it great for everyone else. That’s where the crux of the matter lies.
People like you mistake what benefits you personally from what benefits society as a whole.
Just what would that mean when all rents are higher and many Tenants who can afford where they live now can’t nor are capable or can afford to leave their jobs and move out of the city
What would that do to employment ? We can’t get employees now to fill the jobs …
The increases in rent will suck more money in to rent and less into other businesses .
It will act like a giant tax .
Nyc is the unskilled labor Mecca ..
It offers subsidized housing , lots of lower end jobs , a cheap expansive public transportation system , ethnic neighborhoods where one can live with their own .
So we tend to have lots of lower earners and jobs
Just poor logic here in your thinking.
In fact it is silly to even play the what if game as stabilization is not going anywhere here for all the obvious reasons including voters.
It will likely do nothing for those not stabilized as their rents are not going down and hurt those who are so it is a no win for politicians
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-03-2022 at 06:39 AM..
I highly doubt NYC will get rid of it. The 421-a is another form of rent stabilization that is used for affordable housing. It’ expired in June & they are releasing a new one under a new name in December. As long as developers need incentive to build housing there will be some form of rent stabilization.
Of course they won’t. It’s a huge influence and leverage mechanism for NYCs politicians both with the private sector and with voters.
You’re looking for an affordable housing unit. Would you vote for any politician that promised to scrap the program? Of course not.
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.
