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.
Some % of the million apartments are very close to market rent, though. Some might be stabilized but are rented out at a market rate even if they are still under stabilization. For example, a unit might have had a lot of turnover, with the legal max rent going up 10% each time. So, units in like East New York might have max legal rent of $1,500 even though the market rate for them is $1100 or so.
That is what I am thinking too.
Stabilization just prevents a gross upturn. It is not as restrictive as control.
It is there to make sure people do not get thrown out when things like the housing bubble come along and median rents double in a few years.
But still lets say is 40%(it can be 25% since the median is lower, meaning the majority are lower), that is still a big % of the market controlled.
Actually, not as much as you think.
The key here is to see how much the property they are on is actually worth. When you start doing averages of LARGE groups, you can get skewed results. One apartment building in Manhattan with "market rate" rents (at $3000 and above) can easily skew the "average" market rent shown on the stats ($1200 +/-). It would probably have to be broken down into smaller regions and then re-grouped according to demographics (Like Forrest Hills, Caroll Gardens, Brooklyn Heights being grouped as "affluent Communities - outer boroughs", but areas like Bed-Stuy being in a seperate grouping...).....
The main problem I see with this whole thing is I hear so much yelling about it, but the full story almost never comes out. People crying about the horror of $30 extra a month, but at the same time, landlors claiming that they can do nothing on what they have been paid when other landlords have demonstrated that they HAVE done nothing when paid. (I bet you could find some of the rent controlled owners guilty of that on other properties and they use the rent control as an excuse when it really has not drained them of enough resource to make it a viable excuse).
I am not saying these landlords are evil, but usually the ones you hear the loudest not shouting anything are the ones that have the most to gain for nothing.
Question, is there any data on the perceived market values of these stabilized places as compared to the median rent paid? If these places are not lik ethe $3500/mo one bedroom places (similar to what a co-worker got with her hubby) then it is difficult to get a strait-forward comparison of actual medians and how much these values are truy depressed.
If you use the link that cjma posted, search st names in manhattan's highest rent districts. I just searched a couple in soho, and almost every building on some streets in on there. Anything in those buildings would go for very close to $2k market.
The key here is to see how much the property they are on is actually worth. When you start doing averages of LARGE groups, you can get skewed results. One apartment building in Manhattan with "market rate" rents (at $3000 and above) can easily skew the "average" market rent shown on the stats ($1200 +/-). It would probably have to be broken down into smaller regions and then re-grouped according to demographics (Like Forrest Hills, Caroll Gardens, Brooklyn Heights being grouped as "affluent Communities - outer boroughs", but areas like Bed-Stuy being in a seperate grouping...).....
.
The $1200 figure is a median so it is not susceptible to the sort of skew you are talking about.
People making that kind of money are eligible for the PJ.
I have in-laws in the projects.
They are no big gift.
Quote:
And you think is fair that a person pays 200 while other can't even life there but would love to?
Um, depends. If there is an old widow living there being supported by her daughter who is the wife of a WWII vet? Yeah. If it is the grandkid of that vet who basically does not want to pay more? Nope.
Let me turn it back on you. Those apartments are a SMALL portion of the 2% of the overall rentals out there. If EVERY LAST ONE of them were released, do you think it would make any real difference?
I don't.
Quote:
Is not just rent control is stabilized that also has problems.
Stabilized isn't as bad as you think. It may depress prices, but I don't think you will find any $200 mansions to rent...
Quote:
The main subject here are stabilized and not control, so now you hear about it. Manhattan is full of rent stabilized, you decided if they are luxury or not, but should considered them luxury.
That's the key. Whenever this is brought up, people forget to seperate them. They bring up the $200/mo example, but yet do not realize (or want to realize) that that is control, not stabilization.
I am trying to seperate the two and let you see that the stuff that is on fire wouldn't have been quite so much a bonfire without all the gas these stories keep dumping on it.
There is some substance to the claims of discrimination and unfair practices, but all the grief associated with it (that it is somehow controlling the market, etc etc) is rather unsubstantiated and intended to get everybody whipped up to try and get the masses to fight for something they will never see any benifit from.
Quote:
Not all of them are withing the same family, people move and other people gets them.
And then the landlords are able to up the prices. Hoboken allows a 25% increase to BASE rent, every 2 years, BETWEEN tenants.
Quote:
Please going around the subject is not going to help you.
And yes some rent stabilized apartments are in great locations.
Take your friends address and put it the link provided and see how many apartments in his area are controlled.(maybe even in the same building) Rent Regulated Building Search
Are you saying that the landlord, in such a compeditive market, would out of the grace of his heart charge less for the apartment they are in if they:
1. HAD rent controlled apartments in or around their unit/building.
2. That control/stabilization was repealed.
That would only work if there was enough apartments to satisfy the need. There aren't. People will pay what they think the place is worth, and that is it. If people still want to live there, and there is still ashortage, increasing it by that meager amount (and we are not saying that every stabilized apartment will all of a sudden become vacant and only slightly higher....)
I guess the main problem is just that. Manhattan and the surrounding area is a different animal. Free market would make it so expensive it would eat itself and start a cyclic migration (the low-income people would not be able to live here, they would not be able to find a place close enough to commute and still support the family. They would either find work elsewhere or move out completely. Sounds fine until you have to pay $8 for that tuna salad sandwich or $6 to get your shirt laundered.)
Once COL goes up because the cost of labor has gone up, things become less desirable, ot just plain less affordable for many and you may end up seeing either a cut-back in spending (putting buisnesses out of, well, buisness) or an exodus. Both of which do not bode the city well, and each usually happening with the other.
So I know where you are coming from. I am not condoning the abuse of the system by any means, but calling for its abolition as some sort of cure-all will just not do it.
Everything they have tried does not seem to work quite right, so what, besides this nihilistic solution, would be the answer that would actually work to obtain better neighborhoods that ALL could afford in one way or another?
And then the landlords are able to up the prices. Hoboken allows a 25% increase to BASE rent, every 2 years, BETWEEN tenants.
Its different in NYC. If a family member (granddaughter, for example) moves in with a rent stabilized family member (her grandmother, for example), or at least claims to and creates some proof of such, then when the grandmother dies, the granddaughter keeps the apt at the rent her grandmother paid. Same thing for the families who live three generations deep and three people to each bedroom in a single apartment-they will never leave.
So, you can see that its difficult to get to the point where a LL is between tenants. Even then, its a 10% raise for a new tenant if the new tenant signs a one-year lease, and a 16% (I could be wrong about this number, but its approx that) increase if the new tenant signs a two year. After this initial increase, subsequent yearly rent increases are mandated by the NY state legislature.
Are you saying that the landlord, in such a compeditive market, would out of the grace of his heart charge less for the apartment they are in if they:
1. HAD rent controlled apartments in or around their unit/building.
2. That control/stabilization was repealed.
That would only work if there was enough apartments to satisfy the need. There aren't. People will pay what they think the place is worth, and that is it. If people still want to live there, and there is still ashortage, increasing it by that meager amount (and we are not saying that every stabilized apartment will all of a sudden become vacant and only slightly higher....)
I guess the main problem is just that. Manhattan and the surrounding area is a different animal. Free market would make it so expensive it would eat itself and start a cyclic migration (the low-income people would not be able to live here, they would not be able to find a place close enough to commute and still support the family. They would either find work elsewhere or move out completely. Sounds fine until you have to pay $8 for that tuna salad sandwich or $6 to get your shirt laundered.)
Once COL goes up because the cost of labor has gone up, things become less desirable, ot just plain less affordable for many and you may end up seeing either a cut-back in spending (putting buisnesses out of, well, buisness) or an exodus. Both of which do not bode the city well, and each usually happening with the other.
So I know where you are coming from. I am not condoning the abuse of the system by any means, but calling for its abolition as some sort of cure-all will just not do it.
Everything they have tried does not seem to work quite right, so what, besides this nihilistic solution, would be the answer that would actually work to obtain better neighborhoods that ALL could afford in one way or another?
We might be better off if some of the people who would move out of the metro if rent stabilization was ended did, in fact, move out. Housing would get more affordable and you'd have less of the middle class feeling squeezed out. Come on, you're on the NJ board, how many "I make $80k per year but am moving to NC because housing costs too much" posts do you see?
As for there not being enough people to fill the $7/hr type jobs...I just really doubt it. There are tons of people who have no skills that will earn them more than that and if it became somewhat common knowledge that such jobs could be had really easily in manhattan, folks would move to the metro for them. They might be living in Newark or Hempstead to get to them, and they might be living 8 people to a bedroom, but they'll still come. Maybe from poor parts of the US, more likely from Ecuador, Guatemala or Mexico. Maybe more high school students would work?
The $1200 figure is a median so it is not susceptible to the sort of skew you are talking about.
My bad on that one GS, I guess it would depend on the distribution.
A few at $3500 wouldn't do anything, but how many at that upper level would draw the average away from its truly representative and comparable value?
I guess what I am saying is that if you have a bunch of expensive places you should only compare the regulated rent of comparable units. Same for median units and same for lower end units.
If there isn't a significant pool of high-rent or high-value regulated buildings to compare to, those buildings should be removed entirely from the calculation of the median of the unregulated places.
You look at the values that are present in the sample of regulated homes, you see that the best is 1500. If you remove any above 1500 from the unregulated, your median drops to 950. 775 to 950 may be a more reasonable comparison (still undervalued) than 775 to 1500. You get a better idea of exactly how much this is, or isn't an issue.
Yes they are undervalued, but not as much as what blind math would say.
Pardon if I do not have all day to go through 40 "fact sheets" to find the numbers I am looking for, although I do appreciate the link.
What are you talking about, in my link you just put the address and you will get a list off all the apartments that are stabilized and controlled.
Quote:
The question is still back on your shoulders though. If you say (or if others say) that rent control/stabilization is at fault, asking for the proof (such as actual #'s of $ lost per sector in comparison to the actual full gross netted in all rental property in, say, Manhattan), is part of the process.
Put in any address you want, or better yet but a luxury address in UES or UWS, and you will get a list of apartments.
Quote:
Side note on the 5% deal. How is it ironic? If the purpose of the ruling is to make it so that people do not get shoved out of their places, and the market is so compeditive that they can't afford to either live IN the city, or even move out, what's left?
Is not their places, they don't own it, they should live in the PJ.
Quote:
Has the % ever gone below 5%? When? 1970-something? At that time rents were cheap because no-body wanted to live in some areas (Alphabet city, etc). No need for control when things are still readily available.
We are not talking about control we are talking about the 50% that are stabilized, who said that this was about control?
Quote:
Look, I am not calling for the unfair practice of giving stuff away practically for free. The mere fact that both tenants AND landlords are human means you can have ...buttholes that are either. You will have the landlord that WANTS to fix up their property but can't because of lack of funds and a lack of respect from teh tenants, but you can also get landlords that will get as much as they can for as little as possible in return. It has happened and it will happen again.
This is what it is, and unfair practice of giving free money away.
So how do you solve the problem and prevent landlords from charging whatever they want and driving the ones who have the LEAST means of relocation out of their homes? More projects? Higher paid Janitors?
If the solution were as easy as a lightswitch someone would have flicked it a long time ago....[/quote]
The key here is to see how much the property they are on is actually worth. When you start doing averages of LARGE groups, you can get skewed results. One apartment building in Manhattan with "market rate" rents (at $3000 and above) can easily skew the "average" market rent shown on the stats ($1200 +/-). It would probably have to be broken down into smaller regions and then re-grouped according to demographics (Like Forrest Hills, Caroll Gardens, Brooklyn Heights being grouped as "affluent Communities - outer boroughs", but areas like Bed-Stuy being in a seperate grouping...).....
The main problem I see with this whole thing is I hear so much yelling about it, but the full story almost never comes out. People crying about the horror of $30 extra a month, but at the same time, landlors claiming that they can do nothing on what they have been paid when other landlords have demonstrated that they HAVE done nothing when paid. (I bet you could find some of the rent controlled owners guilty of that on other properties and they use the rent control as an excuse when it really has not drained them of enough resource to make it a viable excuse).
I am not saying these landlords are evil, but usually the ones you hear the loudest not shouting anything are the ones that have the most to gain for nothing.
You must understand this are private building, the owner has the right to charge what ever he wants.
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.
)
