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.
Weren’t you trying to privatize your UES Mitchell Lama building a couple of years ago, so that you could earn a comfortable profit? MLs are one of the most rare but sought out affordable housing in NYC. And you claim to care about rent burdened NYers. *crocodile tears*
The other posters beat me to it, the cnbc article is using fuzzy math with their so called ‘average rents’ figures.
Wouldn’t surprise me if that was the case ..
It’s always let the other guy take a cut , usually he wants landlords to invest their money and tolerate tenants but restrict them to less than the returns they bought based on
But of course he expects market interest rates on his own money and the full colas on his social security.
But others who chose real estate as an investment should be forced to less then they bargained for when they bought
He would whine like heck if the govt announced they were cutting his ss payment that he lives on , because the ss fund needs to conserve money . Ha ha .
But it’s okay for those who bought investments in real estate to just take cuts in income at the will of the govt
That's how it is with most of these types. They see the welfare state in NYC as a lottery. Of course, it feels good to get something for nothing.
To cover their own greed and thievery, they like to talk about "the rich and their greed and thievery". It's all projection.
Right. It’s this sense of entitlement. Thinking that they should live on easy street, just because they earned less than others. Or because they have a certain skin color. Then feigning concern for rent-burdened while trying to take back several hundreds of affordable apartment away for half a mil$. Just calling out the BS feels good.
Living in NYC is a privilege, not a right. If you want to be there especially in an affluent hood, gotta pay for it. Figure out a way to make the big bucks. If you land a rent-controlled apt or even a rent-stabilized one, you better keep that.
Living in NYC is a privilege, not a right. If you want to be there especially in an affluent hood, gotta pay for it. Figure out a way to make the big bucks. If you land a rent-controlled apt or even a rent-stabilized one, you better keep that.
Oh I don't know.
It takes great luck or knowing a guy, that knows a guy who knows a guy to land a below market rate RS unit. Rent controlled is just off the table period.
Leaving aside all the new construction "affordable" or "low income" RS units the older stock is often busted to just a hair above. Since change in rent laws LLs often aren't even bothering with painting between tenants. You take a place as is or step aside and someone else will.
There are tons of RS units in places like Yorkville, Chelsea, West Village, etc... in old five story or whatever buildings going for well north of $2k per for a studio or small one bedroom. Complete with ancient heating/hot water systems, vermin in walls (or at least somewhere in building). If location matters (that is being in Manhattan below Harlem), people often will overlook the minuses.
Really below market rent RS units are largely part of that supply being warehoused, especially such apartments in Manhattan. Personally know several elderly persons who died many months ago now and they were lifers (moved into their RS unit sometime shortly after God made dirt and spit), thus last legal rent must be pennies compared to market. LLs just will not rent those units out with current rent laws.
Again if you're lucky and know people (such as friends or family of LL), you might have a shot. But general population might as well forget it.
Landlords had been duped by politicians in the rental markets previously as tenants became political pawns to win votes and rents were artificially and purposely kept low .
I could not agree more.
I knew someone long ago who had a huge multifamily. R.I.P.
I asked him. Why do you keep your apartments empty?
He told me in so many words.
"If I add one tenant I'm in for a fight."
"If I add two tenants I get beat up."
"If I add more tenants they own the building."
Mind you, this was back in the 60's and early 70's.
He didn't like that the city had more power over his property than him.
So he got even. Kept it entirely empty except for his apartment.
I believe those who have been wronged will be righted.
The aftermath of policies of long ago reverberate today.
Purposefully emptied apartments in the last few years stand as testaments today.
The biggest spike was not because landlords were holding them back but Covid left them with no tenants.
There is little advantage to keeping them empty ….there are some exceptions but most of the time it isn’t because they want to .
Remember , anything built after 1974 doesn’t have to be stabilized, it is stabilized because the owners want to be.
Smart owners actually put as much money as they could into capital improvements .
It helped push the apartments up towards destabilization much faster
In the past that was a great way to push up rents while increasing the value of the building .
Today they capped the mci increases
Last edited by mathjak107; 02-13-2023 at 04:55 AM..
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.
