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.
theres alot of people in nyc who think teachers in the city have benefits, especially legacy benefits that are sooooo out of whack with the amount of days a teacher actually works per year . there are teachers i know collecting 75,000 a year with full medical for life for a job where they may work 9 months a year and everyone else gets nothing from their jobs....
i dont want to debate whether they are or arent over compensated as my wife and daughter are in that profession and it has no bearing,as far as my feeling everyone should make as much as the markets will allow them. but suppose the city told teachers we are cutting your benefits and your income and any student in your class thats is below a certain debt to income ratio regardless of lifestyle you have to give that money to whether you wanted to or not.... this is on top of your normal taxes.. and what if the city only did this to teachers and no other job?????????
i dont think teachers would be very happy do you?
Last edited by mathjak107; 12-08-2008 at 06:25 AM..
when a low income person can't afford to buy food at the local grocery store at market prices, the city steps in and provides the person with food stamps to by food. Food is a basic human necessity therefore the City did the right thing by providing assistance out of "their own pockets"
The grocery store owner is NOT forced to sell his food at below market prices and lose profit for the sake of "doing the right thing". At the end of the day, the grocery store owner makes the same profit selling it to the low income person as he would to a regular person. No problem there.
HOWEVER,,,
In rent stabilized apartment buildings, (another basic human necessity) Landlords are FORCED to sell or in this case, RENT out apartments to below-market rate. The rent stabilization law FORCES the landlord to absorb the income loss of tenants who pay below fair market rents. Does the City come in and pay the Landlords the difference he is not getting in rents? NO!!!!! At the end of the day, all of the landlord's expenses are at the market rate while the majority of his rent income is below market! How is that Fair?
That in itself opens up another can of worms because that is the main reason why a lot of rent stabilized apartment buildings look like crap and look very undesirable. Hence, the SLUMLORD labeling starts. There is no incentive in fixing up stabilized apartments while the tenant is still there when you will get 1/40th of what you spend. Hardly any return at the end.
my problem is this...
a lot of people say, "end rent stabilization because whoever can't afford to live in nyc shouldn't."
when people say nyc, do they mean the entire 5 boros, or do they just mean manhattan? because i know there is a strain on apartments in manhattan, and who can't help but get jealous at the person who has been living on east 15th street for 31 years and pays 400 a month rent-controlled.
however, my thing is, if you end rent stabilization, where do you expect the people who do the public service jobs to live? cashiers at supermarkets? gas station attendants? bodega owners?
that's a link to the long island railroad's monthly fares.
as you notice, it increases in price the farther you are from the city. the cheapest monthly pass is $135.00 and thats from destinations starting in Queens. 50 bucks more than a monthly metrocard. nobody making $8 an hour to provide a service that somebody with a bachelors won't do would be willing to commute that far, or pay to get there, because they would be basically spending their meager check on car fare. so rent stabilization has to exist for a reason. you people forget what makes this city move. and its not just the big timers on wall street, but its your little man too, who keeps your wall street building clean. thats why these programs are in place, to keep the balance of the city. so u know what? end the rent stabilization, let landlords charge whatever they want for rent, and you will see what will happen to nyc's economy. hell, at least more people have a chance to commute 25 minutes to work door to door.
ps: you might say, well if you dont want to sweep floors, go to college. what if everybody in usa had a bachelors right now? there still wouldnt be enough jobs for everybody. so somebody has to sweep. somebody has to manage hedge fund accounts. its the way the world works. so i know williamsburg isnt exactly greenwich village, but pay your $600 p/mo for an apartment that you share with 3 other people, and deal with it.
sorry but this topic gets me heated.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
they can live anywhere they can afford just like the bulk of new yorkers do who havent lived in a stabilized apartment for the last 20 years...everyone else is paying market rate including those who are fairly new to stabilized buildings... what changed for everyone else because a select few pay less then fair market rent ? nothing thats what.. in fact everyone else is paying more because of the decent apartment rental shortage ..
get the city to subsidize those that cant afford to live in an area they shouldnt be in or better yet you send them a check.....
Last edited by mathjak107; 12-15-2008 at 05:19 PM..
Analysis after analysis of the NYC housing market conclude that the end of rent regulation would of course result in higher rents for tenants who currently pay artificially low rents. That would happen immediately. However, rents for the rest of the tenant population, these analysts say, eventually would GO DOWN. This would happen because apartment hoarding by these (low-rent) tenants would end because they no longer have the low-rent incentive to sit on their apartments for decades. That would gradually put a million apartments on the market, greatly increasing the supply relative to the demand. That lowers rents.
This was actually borne out when rent regulation was ended in Massachusetts in the 1990's.
thats exacley what i see happening...lets not forget the stabilized apartment is vanashing.. most apartments are co-op in the boroughs as well as quite a few in manhattan. any with origional tenents are only stabilized until that tenant moves. thats the bulk of all the apartments..... i dont know many buildings left in queens that arent co-op.
as inflation just naturally kicks up rent they become deregulated at 2,000 bucks when the orig tenant moves out or when the existing tenents income is over 175,000 for 2 years.
there also is no benefit anymore even if you get one. the day you move in your pretty much at fair market and the rent increases are real world fair market so there is no more saving..... people who argue this stuff on the forum are running on yesterdays news and lack of understanding of the whole system
I don't get the folks who try to pass off this sob-story stuff about how landlords get cheated out of the right to charge whatever they want with rent-stabilized buildings. It shouldn't come as a surprise to any landlord that their apartments are stabilized or rent-controlled, so it seems to me that the cost of this downside should generally have been accounted for in the price the landlord paid for the building. If it's so undesirable and unfair to own a rent-stabilized building, then the cost of purchasing one should fall to a point that makes it worth owning anyway. No one forces anyone to own a building, for god's sake, and anyone who does should know to factor in rent-stabilization as part of the cost of doing business.
you would think that you got a break but thats only true if maybe you recently bought a building and even then you might not of because of the worth of the building . origional owners got a short lived tax break... but let me ask you something you may have gone to school for your degree decades ago when college was cheaper. are you not entitled to earn the same fair market wage that your position should pay today? should the city tell you since you went to a city university and paid less then it costs today you have to earn 20% less than anyone else... got where im going? the stabilization idea didnt seem to bad when alot of older rentals were built. what made it bad was the city put the screws to landlords later on with unfair small rent increases that caused the apartments overtime to lag way behind fair market value for those that had them and did nothing for the rest of new yorkers. all it did is prevent to the best of my knowledge the building of not 1 rental building in the entire city since the late 70's. except luxury rentals and low income
Last edited by mathjak107; 12-15-2008 at 05:45 PM..
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.
