Apartment hunting in NYC? Supply of open units hasn't been this bad since the 1960s (New York: transplants, coops)
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.
Thanks for the info Bugs. Between you and mathjak, I am changing my stance on rent stabilization to the point where I can see how it can be difficult for LLs to maintain the property. The rent roll simply can't sustain the expenses. I have to really look at what happened to Boston when they got rid of rent stabilization. I'll be back to this thread later after I do some research.
On average rents did increase in many areas of Boston post RS era, but construction of new rental housing and substantial rehab of older properties did as well. Values of properties increased as well with those formerly under RS appreciating most.
Thing is study after study for decades by economists of all sorts among others have reached same conclusion; rent regulation (as in local government setting prices/rents) is simply wrong on many levels.
Basically what you have is a housing version of "to the victor goes the spoils".
Those in below market or low income rent regulated housing *NEVER* leave unless evicted or feet first on a stretcher. This even if they could afford to pay more for their unit.
Meanwhile the costs associated with keeping such persons in their rent regulated unit are not small and paid for by others. Persons who need low income or "affordable" housing cannot get those RS units because current tenant won't leave. Thus only solution is to find a way to induce developers or landlords to somehow provide such housing which in turn costs money from somewhere.
You can bet the egg money that in a few decades some number of those in "affordable" or "low income" lottery RS apartments will break down into same groups as others in rent regulated housing.
Certain percentage will have seen their annual household income grow far in excess of original AMI or whatever income band got them into said housing. They can comfortably afford to pay higher rent, but don't have to.
OTOH you'll have another percentage of households that will join the "rent poor" brigade. That is each month they will be paying substantial to majority of income towards rent.
Because RS is not tied to income it creates a system of winners and losers.
I personally know dozens of RS tenants who have second or even third homes, and are otherwise very well off. Their rent is peanuts and there isn't' anything anyone can do about situation since luxury decontrol was repealed.
On average rents did increase in many areas of Boston post RS era, but construction of new rental housing and substantial rehab of older properties did as well. Values of properties increased as well with those formerly under RS appreciating most.
Thing is study after study for decades by economists of all sorts among others have reached same conclusion; rent regulation (as in local government setting prices/rents) is simply wrong on many levels.
Basically what you have is a housing version of "to the victor goes the spoils".
Those in below market or low income rent regulated housing *NEVER* leave unless evicted or feet first on a stretcher. This even if they could afford to pay more for their unit.
Meanwhile the costs associated with keeping such persons in their rent regulated unit are not small and paid for by others. Persons who need low income or "affordable" housing cannot get those RS units because current tenant won't leave. Thus only solution is to find a way to induce developers or landlords to somehow provide such housing which in turn costs money from somewhere.
You can bet the egg money that in a few decades some number of those in "affordable" or "low income" lottery RS apartments will break down into same groups as others in rent regulated housing.
Certain percentage will have seen their annual household income grow far in excess of original AMI or whatever income band got them into said housing. They can comfortably afford to pay higher rent, but don't have to.
OTOH you'll have another percentage of households that will join the "rent poor" brigade. That is each month they will be paying substantial to majority of income towards rent.
Because RS is not tied to income it creates a system of winners and losers.
I personally know dozens of RS tenants who have second or even third homes, and are otherwise very well off. Their rent is peanuts and there isn't' anything anyone can do about situation since luxury decontrol was repealed.
I don't see any incentive for any real estate developer to build affordable housing unless the government gets involved, how do you solve that issue?
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
So far, what I've found is that MA actually abolished rent stabilization - the entire state did, not just Boston
That actually is a bigger deal, can't move anywhere else cheaper in the state unless you're like 2 hrs away from Boston
Boston is looking to get rent stabilization back
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
So far, what I've found is that MA actually abolished rent stabilization - the entire state did, not just Boston
That actually is a bigger deal, can't move anywhere else cheaper in the state unless you're like 2 hrs away from Boston
Boston is looking to get rent stabilization back
Am giving you a grade of "incomplete" as further work is needed on your research.
As with New York City (the authority to enact rent regulation comes from Albany), Boston, Cambridge and other areas of MA with rent regulation were only able to adopt such policies because state law allowed.
To get rid of rent regulation in Boston and other areas MA simply repealed laws that made it possible.
It was same with NYS when RS laws were due to expire every five years or so unless Albany renewed said laws. If laws were not renewed RS in NYC would have ended. This is why first GD thing democrats did when taking control of Albany was make RS permanent. In order for NYS's rent regulation laws to end now Albany would need to pass new legislation repealing said law. Long as democrats control state assembly even if GOP ever regains senate that's just not going to happen. Even if by some circumstance both chambers did approve such a law it isn't certain a governor would sign off.
Only other way for RS to end in NYS is for any area that has such regulations to have a vacancy rate of 5%. Good luck with that. NYC has never hit that number in the 60 or so years since RS was enacted. Things came close during pandemic with vacancy rates in NYC reaching about 4.6%, but democrats slapped down any attempt to take advantage of emergency caused by covid to end RS.
Long as democrats control Albany things are what they are; and RS isn't going anywhere. Thus sixty years from now people will *still* be arguing about lack of "affordable" or "low income" housing and pitching RS as some sort of savior.
No money to buy a thing, but they still need money to pay their rent
So can you really blame them
Haha
Aside from a few select areas of city (such as Staten Island) NYC is largely made up of persons who rent their homes. Indeed overall NYS in general has rather low rates of homeownership compared to other states.
This plays out in any number of ways including fact as noted many people are poor to busted their entire lives.
On average renters have lower net worth than those who own their homes. This means come retirement time older life long New Yorkers often face many issues. One of the biggest is they have no control over their housing costs. Unless they're in public housing or some sort of subsidized or income related housing such seniors fact prospect of forking over good to large amounts of monthly income towards rent.
RS is not a perfect system because if a senior, middle-aged or elderly person cannot afford their rent they have few options. Waiting lists for low income senior housing is decades long. People actually die before their names are called.
If you own your own home hopefully by time you reach retirement age if not before it's paid for, so all you have to worry about is taxes and upkeep. Plus you should have built up a nice bit of equity that can be realized when place is sold. Again renters don't have that equity or property, so unless they've been carefully saving, investing and planning for retirement...
Problem for RS tenants is their rent only goes one way; up. Having a monthly rent of only $1000 is fine, but if your monthly income is only $1600 or maybe 2000, things will be tight or something has to give.
I don't see any incentive for any real estate developer to build affordable housing unless the government gets involved, how do you solve that issue?
There really isn't a silver bullet to solve that issue.
Building and running any sort of multi-family in NYC is what the eff it is. Both city and state have four thousand ways from Sunday of regulations, rules, laws, and so on that mean one or both is constantly up a property owner's a$$.
Rental housing in NYC is taxed as commercial property. It is that category who pay the largest share of property taxes in NYC (co-op and condo are second, and 1-3 family homes dead last). On top of this you want to ask LL's to provide housing at below costs.
It used to be in exchange for providing incentives RS units in "affordable" housing would leave system in 30 or so years. Since B de B came into office that was switched up with city pushing for permanently affordable or low income, meaning units will never come out of RS. That and or units won't come out of RS until tenant vacates unit. That could be one, two, three, four, ten or more years after RS otherwise sunset.
Largest issue is simple something one has always said; large numbers of households in NYC need low to very low income housing. We're talking housing for households earning $40-$60k per year. Worse many of these low income households are two or three adults with a few children, in short they want or need "family size" apartments (two or three bedrooms). Those units are expensive to build and in short supply even for those who can afford market rate.
No. The option is to move somewhere else with a lower COL (including housing) relative to salaries. This is most of ghe country. No one is forced to live in NYC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeventhFloor
People are paying them because they have no choice
Am giving you a grade of "incomplete" as further work is needed on your research.
As with New York City (the authority to enact rent regulation comes from Albany), Boston, Cambridge and other areas of MA with rent regulation were only able to adopt such policies because state law allowed.
To get rid of rent regulation in Boston and other areas MA simply repealed laws that made it possible.
It was same with NYS when RS laws were due to expire every five years or so unless Albany renewed said laws. If laws were not renewed RS in NYC would have ended. This is why first GD thing democrats did when taking control of Albany was make RS permanent. In order for NYS's rent regulation laws to end now Albany would need to pass new legislation repealing said law. Long as democrats control state assembly even if GOP ever regains senate that's just not going to happen. Even if by some circumstance both chambers did approve such a law it isn't certain a governor would sign off.
Only other way for RS to end in NYS is for any area that has such regulations to have a vacancy rate of 5%. Good luck with that. NYC has never hit that number in the 60 or so years since RS was enacted. Things came close during pandemic with vacancy rates in NYC reaching about 4.6%, but democrats slapped down any attempt to take advantage of emergency caused by covid to end RS.
Long as democrats control Albany things are what they are; and RS isn't going anywhere. Thus sixty years from now people will *still* be arguing about lack of "affordable" or "low income" housing and pitching RS as some sort of savior.
Nahh I'm not done
That's what I saw so far
I'm gonna be researching for a few days.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
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.
