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.
c'mon, doc. i know you better than that - you saw the last paragraph not just the first!!!
Yes,,
But you cant deny that this subject is a personal subject for you.
It would be for me if a LL kicked my grandmother or mother out of the apartment.
Yes,,
But you cant deny that this subject is a personal subject for you.
It would be for me if a LL kicked my grandmother or mother out of the apartment.
i hear ya..and who knows it might even have been one of our illustrious landlords aboard who did it!
but you're exonerated since you're not a landlord, just someone who pays only for his own consumption.
cj, here's how taxes come into play with regulated apartments, etc., since you keep mentioning "personal money."
1. When someone pays taxes that is in effect one's "personal money" being used for others.
Yes, but again, everybody has to pay for it right,(well almost 40% of the population doesnt, but that is another subject.)
Quote:
2. Builders of rent regulated units did not do so out of the kindness of their hearts alone but via tax concessions, abatements, relief, etc.
We dont have any builders for rent regulated, the law is only for old buildings, not new.
Quote:
3. When good investors make wise business investments they would factor regulated rents in determining their offerring price.
yes, but even the best investors dont know the future cost of expenses, Like and increadible 50% increase or more.
And again, this law should be that everybody pays for it, just like PJ, everybody pays public housing with taxes, not LL only.
So if society wants to help, society dont have the right to demand only LL to help, it should be the WHOLE society.
Why NYC dont building more PJ, are better manange them.
A better way to make the law work better, is that the law comes in affect when a new tenants comes.
Lets a old persons leaves an apartment that only paid 500 dollars.
Then that apartment is still controlled and some person, who may be rich takes it.
Better version would be, the person leaves the apt. and the rent jumps to normal rates, then when a person sing a lease the person with the new price becomes rent controlled. That way you protect people and LL, and still I have problems with my own version of the law, but at least it would be a better law.
yes, but even the best investors dont know the future cost of expenses,
welcome to business 101. they have to factor uncertainty of both revenue and expenses in their capital budgeting decisions. that's not my problem if they are lousy at what they do. also if they are somehow naive to believe that the days of champage and caviar last from year to year then they should stick their money in a cd and let better educated investors run the show!
welcome to business 101. they have to factor uncertainty of both revenue and expenses in their capital budgeting decisions. that's not my problem if they are lousy at what they do. also if they are somehow naive to believe that the days of champage and caviar last from year to year then they should stick their money in a cd and let better educated investors run the show!
Come on miles, no body knew the price of oil and the price of living to go up so high.
You Tenant & Rent Stabilization advocates are missing the point and are not being reasonable with your argument.
This is the easiest way to explain it:
The City does the noble thing by taking responsibility and dishing out money from taxes we ALL pay so that low-income people can afford to buy food, medicine and housing such as the section 8 program.
The key word is ALL as we ALL chip in for the less fortunate. So the burden is on ALL of us to pay for someone else's short comings. The City is using PUBLIC money to provide a service. Very reasonable and fair thing to do.
However, when a rent stabilized person is paying $800 below market rent, the $800 difference does NOT come out of PUBLIC tax payer money but out of PRIVATE money from the Landlord's own pockets. Therefore, the Landlord is ACTING in the same role as the CITY is when it comes to helping out the less fortunate when that shouldn't be the case. Hence, the Landlord is a CHARITY and subsidizing the apartments to the low-income tenants when it should be the City's job to do that, not the Landlord's.
If the lack of affordable housing is a PUBLIC problem, then PUBLIC money should be used to make the problem go away. Why should the burden be solely on the Landlord to use his PRIVATE money to help out a PUBLIC problem? I don't get it!
Since it's the noble thing to do, I'm sure everyone wouldn't mind if the City raised our taxes 1% or so to cover the cost for the rent stabilized tenants.
Please read the entire thread. The points that you are making have been made a thousand times. There are better ways for a landlord to invest their money than to buy a building with rent stabilized apts. One veteran landlord has said so many times on this thread.
All tenants and those in favor of rent stabilization agree that no one forced these landlords to buy these buildings.
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.
