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.
You are WRONG. If you read the example correctly, the son grew up with the parents in the same rent stabilized apartment. Yes, thats more than 2 years! He is 23.
So you mean to tell me that it is perfectly OK for the son to pay $500 for a 3 bedroom JUST BECAUSE he will get a lease renewal increase every 1 or 2 years even though those increase are SO SMALL they don't even matter or make difference.
Is that your way of justifying this law?
I did read what you posted:
Quote:
When the parents moved out and lets say the son had NOT moved in
From that sentence it appeared he was "moving in".
The son lived there the entire time with his parents, correct? Yes, I don't see the problem in him staying under a stabilized lease.
Like I said, the system could be tweaked to ensure 1 person isn't getting a 3BR... they could possibly put in a clause relating to the # of people vs. # of bedrooms... but I know people in stabilized apartments and I've never heard of anyone paying 25% of market rate, that situation sounds more like something from the rent control days. I don't agree with how it went down in the rent control days, but I think some types of regulation can be helpful, unless you want a city of the very rich and the very poor, with long time New Yorkers pushed out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Better_Bronx_2morrow
A 7.25% lease renewal increase on a $500 a month rent is $537.50!
In other words, you think a $537.50 rent for a 3 bedroom apartment is fair? Even though the MARKET rent is $1,900?
You gotta be kidding me.
A percentage increase is a percentage increase, regardless of the base rent.
Again, I don't think there tons of situations out there anymore with people paying 25% market rate on a stabilized apartment.
Is this a situation you are dealing with personally or a hypothetical, regarding the dollar amounts?
I don't agree with how it went down in the rent control days, but I think some types of regulation can be helpful, unless you want a city of the very rich and the very poor.
No...I want a city that makes fair decisions for all. I want a city that FORCES a person to work hard for what they have, not a city that gives away money to people who turn around and claim entitlement to something that they didn't EARN in the first place.
Succession rights are so stupid and makes absolutely no sense. The son could of been a wealthy professional and he AUTOMATICALLY inherits a cheap apartment. What world do we live in?
The remnants of rent control and all the rent stabilized apartments and their guidelines have been around for so long now that I find it hard to believe that anyone who has bought an apartment building in NYC in the last 40 years wasn't aware of all this when they bought.
My question is why would anyone buy a building with all these stipulations in the first place if the numbers didn't work?
Aren't landlords fully aware of all the tenants and the rents that they are paying and how many apartments are controlled/stabilized when they buy? Aren't these types of transactions usually done on a strictly numbers formula... like you pay 10x the rent roll for a building? Doesn't that number include all the "below market" rents and therefore automatically devalue the property?In other words,doesn't a landlord get to buy a building at "below market" value if the rent roll is "below market value? "
Wouldn't an identical building with no stabilized or controlled tenants sell for a lot more than the one with them?
Do some landlord go ahead and buy these buildings anyway hoping that all these laws will just go away,everyone will be put out on the street and they will hit the jackpot?
It's really the people of New York who are hurt by rent regs
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Better_Bronx_2morrow
In this day and age of high operating expenses such as fuel, property taxes, insurance, water & sewage, maintanance and repair and mortgage payments. Does anyone feel its JUST to allow such an unfair law to exist that puts a financial burden on landlords?
Before answering, consider yourself a property owner that collects rent to pay expenses. How would you feel about the situation above? Do you feel as if you are getting robbed and ripped off by allow such a thing to happen?
"I've said it once in a different thread and I'll say it again...POLICTIANS SHOULD REALLY LISTEN TO THIS ADVISE. IT'S A WIN-WIN for ALL. "
Bronx,
The politicians will never loosen the rent regulation grip until they believe that it is in their political interests to do so. You can present very rational arguments about how unfair the system is to owners (the politicians are well aware of this) until you're blue in the face, but it will not change the political picture. It all comes down to the comparative strength of voting blocs. The low-rent tenant lobby is loud, militant and much stronger in terms of numbers than owners of rent-stabilized property. In fact, with the Dems now in total control of Albany, the grip could get a lot tighter in the near future.
The only way to affect a political change is to wake up the general population as to the very serious and negative ways rent reg hurts them. How it artificially keeps the apartment supply down and market rents up, and how it imposes a tax burden due to the necessity of maintaining huge state and city bureaucracies and court systems to administer the system and due to the lower property taxes collected because of decreased property values.
It's not landlords vs. low-rent tenants, it's really the people of New York vs. low-rent tenants. Nothing will change until this sinks in.
The remnants of rent control and all the rent stabilized apartments and their guidelines have been around for so long now that I find it hard to believe that anyone who has bought an apartment building in NYC in the last 40 years wasn't aware of all this when they bought.
My question is why would anyone buy a building with all these stipulations in the first place if the numbers didn't work?
Aren't landlords fully aware of all the tenants and the rents that they are paying and how many apartments are controlled/stabilized when they buy? Aren't these types of transactions usually done on a strictly numbers formula... like you pay 10x the rent roll for a building? Doesn't that number include all the "below market" rents and therefore automatically devalue the property?In other words,doesn't a landlord get to buy a building at "below market" value if the rent roll is "below market value? "
Wouldn't an identical building with no stabilized or controlled tenants sell for a lot more than the one with them?
Do some landlord go ahead and buy these buildings anyway hoping that all these laws will just go away,everyone will be put out on the street and they will hit the jackpot?
I am trying to understand this whole problem.
we were dupped,,,back when we put up our building the city said dont worry rent stabilization wont effect you, its just to prevent gouging..... in exchange you were given a 10 year tax abatement back in 1963.....
well politicians found it a great way to get votes so they started to cut back the normal market adjusted rent increases until they lagged soooo badley behind it should have been criminal what they did to landlords...
we converted to co-op in the 70,s to eventually escape this joke but we still have a few old time stablized tenants left
hope that explains it..
and nooooooooo the only rent stabilized apartments i buy are co-ops where its a waiting game for the tenant to accept a lease buy out, die, or move,.. then its de-regulated totaly and we sell
Rent stabilization CAN be abolished IF the City decides to do the RIGHT AND FAIR thing and subsidize all Rent Stabilization tenants that truely need it. You do income verifications on ever Rent Stabilized tenant and determine from there if the City will subsidize 70%, 50%, 25% of the tenant's rent. Very simular to SECTION 8.
Now, you may say..."where is all this money supoose to come from?" EASY...tax payers! All tax payers should EQUALLY chip in to help out the poor who can't afford their apartment. Just like we ALL chip in to pay for WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, SECTION 8, MEDICAID, why should rent stablized tenants who really need it be any different than the programs I already mentioned?
If the City needs to raise the taxes 1% or 2% to make this program a reality, then so be it. It's all in the GREATER good of the City and the people that really need the help.
1. Aren't landlords themselves getting either subsidies or tax abatements for having their units stabilized. My old apartment was abated for 10 years. My landlord gave me notice a year in advance that the abatement period was running out, and that by law, he was free to go market rate. I asked him about it, and he said that since the 10-year period started AFTER I moved in, I was eligible for another year. The extra year gave me enough time to get my affairs in order, move out and buy own condo!
2. I do believe that any end of rent stabilization should be followed by a period of notice (1 year, or 6 months, or 90 days). BB2, while I understand your plight as a landlord, I still believe that tenants should be given some time period to either move or negotiate. Tenants rents rise, but landlords have to wait. Both sides should have to make concessions, correct?
1. Aren't landlords themselves getting either subsidies or tax abatements for having their units stabilized. My old apartment was abated for 10 years. My landlord gave me notice a year in advance that the abatement period was running out, and that by law, he was free to go market rate. I asked him about it, and he said that since the 10-year period started AFTER I moved in, I was eligible for another year. The extra year gave me enough time to get my affairs in order, move out and buy own condo!
2. I do believe that any end of rent stabilization should be followed by a period of notice (1 year, or 6 months, or 90 days). BB2, while I understand your plight as a landlord, I still believe that tenants should be given some time period to either move or negotiate. Tenants rents rise, but landlords have to wait. Both sides should have to make concessions, correct?
There are NO tax abatements to a rent stabilized building UNLESS you do an MCI (Major Capital Improvement) to your building.
In order for the landlord to do an MCI, he has to come out of HIS OWN pockets to fund the construction project or he has to take out a loan from the bank which puts him in deeper debt. The more costly the MCI is, the more tax discount he gets. But what if the landlord doesn't have the money to fund this MCI? And what if the landlord doesn't want to take a loan because the last thing he needs is an extra bill to pay that includes interest charges for the loan? The interest alone will be more than the discount he is getting so they pretty much offset each other.
In return for the MCI, the City will deduct about $2,000 or so from your property tax bill every year for the next 12 years. Or a total of $24K in the 12 years of the so called discount. In the grand schme of things...how good does that do to any landlord? Hardly anything.
How does a savings $2000 a year REALLY help a struggling landlord that loses over $2,000 a year on ONE apartment that pays below market rent?
I'm not being sarcastic when I make this suggestion so hopefully you don't take offense. But it seems that the only way that you really make a large amount of money from being a landlord of a rent stabilized building is when you sell the building.
If you keep posting all the problems that are involved with being a landlord of one of these buildings in the long run, when you are sick of it, you won't get anyone to buy it. I really don't think from what you are saying that the city will change the laws and will probably extend them with all the layoffs, and the economic downturn that the country is going through right now.
After all I'm pretty sure that the person/people that sold it to you didn't tell you all of this either. Most of the things that people that are not landlords, post back to you, are things that they believe is true, and things that real estate people put out to the public, in order to sell the building.
One more thing. You have stated previously that the property is your major source of income. For a lot of people this would be additional income to their job or other business ventures. So they may be pleased with the amount of income generated by the property.
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.
It's really the people of New York who are hurt by rent regs
