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.
No one is ENTITLED to live anywhere. Not me, not you, not the next man. NY (including the 5 boroughs) is NOT for everyone. Things always change and moves in cycles and just because when you were born here and it use to be "affordable" doesn't mean it always has to remain that way for your sake to keep living here. Change is always occurring. Whether you benefit from it or not.
If you see a trend forming in the horizon of higher rents then its up to YOU to come up with a plan that will make you earn more money in the future so when the trend hits, you won't be affected. If the trend hits and you were unprepared for the high rents then the writing is on the wall and its time to move upstate where the cost of living is cheaper.
In defense of NYBorn, how can one prepare themselves to make more money when higher rent trends hit, yet the city in the coming years will mostly attract jobs which pay low wages, either that or unstable financial sector jobs? I understand that you said no one is "entitled" to live anywhere, but for the sake of the city, what draws people here and its economy, you must retain a middle class, be they landlords or tenants. With that same logic, one could say "no one is entitled to own property." But that wouldn't make sense would it? Though the financial sector is important, the city relies waaaay to heavily on Wall street, while the economic diversity is eroding. I understand that Bloomberg's third term should put more emphasis on middle class initiatives and for the sake of the city I hope he comes through with it.
The middle class are the ones who create the small businesses which bolster the local economy, the jobs needed to keep them here are of a diverse range and will strengthin other sectors of the city. A strong middle class brings about a well balanced and stable city with a thriving local economy. If they continue to focus solely on the wealthy it will bring about a homogenization of the local economy and make it more vulnerable to market woes as the financial sector is bolstered at the expense of other areas. Initiatives created to attract and retain only the wealthy discourages the growth of a segment of the population where the bulk of entrepreneurship and creativity derive from. Sure you can attract alot of nomadic young people who end up leaving by the time they're 30, so what does that mean when you attract people that have no long term investment in the city? After a while those things that attracted them here will become less and less as the city becomes increasingly polarized.
There are some who say the middle class has always been leaving, however before they were leaving because of the crime and they left on their own will. Now that the city is safer and more enjoyable, alot of surveys show that the majority of these middle class people did not want to leave and would stay if they could afford to do so. So the whole notion that all middle class families want to live in Mayberry is bogus. I feel with all the initiatives for the wealthy the city has put forth in the last few decades, they should be content now that they have an atmosphere they want to do business in. Now is the time to shift gears and provide more affective initiatives for those who really need it.
Quite honestly, I only care about the Bronx because thats where I work and grew up at. Whenever people speak about NY gentrifying or NY caters to the weathly, I DON'T see it in my neck of the woods to tell you the truth. Any referance people make of "NY" being expensive or for the wealthy is really a referance to MANHATTAN, certainly NOT the Bronx.
People need to understand that Manhattan is in a category of its own. No borough comes close to the market manhattan is. From now on, we should refer to the BOROUGH in which we speak about because if you just say NY or NYC, people reading your post will automatically think it refers to ALL 5 boroughs which is misleading since each borough has its own market and different demographics.
All the beefing about high rents, gentification, rent stabilization, the middle class being squeezed out, etc is really refering and talking about Manhattan. Those situation don't really apply to the Bronx where 85% of the Bronx population is low-income on Section 8 and/or on Welfare. What a shame. If anything, I see the OPPOSITE of gentrification happening in my part of the Bronx. I've seen a huge jump in people who are on welfare and on section 8 or some other type of subside program. So when people say "NY" is catering to the wealthy.....I shake my head and say not in my borough.
All the beefing about high rents, gentification, rent stabilization, the middle class being squeezed out, etc is really refering and talking about Manhattan. Those situation don't really apply to the Bronx where 85% of the Bronx population is low-income on Section 8 and/or on Welfare. What a shame. If anything, I see the OPPOSITE of gentrification happening in my part of the Bronx. I've seen a huge jump in people who are on welfare and on section 8 or some other type of subside program. So when people say "NY" is catering to the wealthy.....I shake my head and say not in my borough.
Subsidized housing squeezes the middle class out also. Landlords get much more money from section 8 than the average working/middleclass NYer can pay most of the time.
Subsidized housing squeezes the middle class out also. Landlords get much more money from section 8 than the average working/middleclass NYer can pay most of the time.
I agree 1 million percent Das and I hate the fact that this is happening in the Bronx. What does that say about the future of the Bronx and where it's headed and the type of people it harbors?
I agree 1 million percent Das and I hate the fact that this is happening in the Bronx. What does that say about the future of the Bronx and where it's headed and the type of people it harbors?
In was sense are you using the word "harbor". Are you referring to secretly sheltering criminals and fugitives, or are you referring to a place of refuge, comfort and safety?
I just wish we could have it like the people had it 40 years ago, where you found a neighborhood in whatever boro, that you could pay 25% of your monthly take home pay for rent. Not have to worry about subsidy or anything. There is absolutely no way for a person to have a decent lifestyle, of any kind, if you are paying more than 1/2 your take home pay, and you are working/middle class.
I totally disagree with the argument that person should leave the city if they can't afford to stay here. The working/middle class people keep this city running. No one is going to live far outside of the city, and pay to commute in, to work an average job. It cost to much to do that, unless you have a job that pays very well. The wealthy are not going to work those jobs, that keep us all going from day to day in this city.
I think that people should be more informed, and get the facts before they pluck down their hard earned money to buy apt buildings with rent stabilized tenants. These laws do help the tenant more than the landlord. A landlord that buys one of these buildings has to have enough money over the long term to finance a constant loss, and hopefully some years later be able to recoup, and profit at the time they sell the property. That is how it has always worked.
It was always this way for the landlords before the rent stabilization laws. Also NYC always had a housing shortage for affordable housing. The rent stabilization laws didn't help that or change that.
If you want to make some real money, try to sell as fast as you can, and get out the landlord business, especially if the only properties you can buy are properties that have rentals for rent stabilized tenants. There are many other ways to make money.
Quite honestly, I only care about the Bronx because thats where I work and grew up at. Whenever people speak about NY gentrifying or NY caters to the weathly, I DON'T see it in my neck of the woods to tell you the truth. Any referance people make of "NY" being expensive or for the wealthy is really a referance to MANHATTAN, certainly NOT the Bronx.
People need to understand that Manhattan is in a category of its own. No borough comes close to the market manhattan is. From now on, we should refer to the BOROUGH in which we speak about because if you just say NY or NYC, people reading your post will automatically think it refers to ALL 5 boroughs which is misleading since each borough has its own market and different demographics.
All the beefing about high rents, gentification, rent stabilization, the middle class being squeezed out, etc is really refering and talking about Manhattan. Those situation don't really apply to the Bronx where 85% of the Bronx population is low-income on Section 8 and/or on Welfare. What a shame. If anything, I see the OPPOSITE of gentrification happening in my part of the Bronx. I've seen a huge jump in people who are on welfare and on section 8 or some other type of subside program. So when people say "NY" is catering to the wealthy.....I shake my head and say not in my borough.
As far as the sentiment of Manhattan, I'd have to agree much of Manhattan below 96th street is a lost cause as far as middle class, but my emphasis is on the outerboroughs. In regards to the Bronx, something should be done to enable the demographic living there to be able to have access to living wage jobs. It won't gentrify the way Brooklyn did so, in my humble opinion, I believe people should have access to proper job training and affordable education so they can get the jobs that pay decent, getting more people off of public assistance and propelling them into middle class status. 42% of adults in the Bronx work in jobs that pay less than $13 an hour. Very little can be done with such a high concentration of poverty.
As far as the sentiment of Manhattan, I'd have to agree much of Manhattan below 96th street is a lost cause as far as middle class, but my emphasis is on the outerboroughs. In regards to the Bronx, something should be done to enable the demographic living there to be able to have access to living wage jobs. It won't gentrify the way Brooklyn did so, in my humble opinion, I believe people should have access to proper job training and affordable education so they can get the jobs that pay decent, getting more people off of public assistance and propelling them into middle class status. 42% of adults in the Bronx work in jobs that pay less than $13 an hour. Very little can be done with such a high concentration of poverty.
This is very true concerning the Bronx. This is why I don't understand why someone would make a major purchase like this, and be so uninformed, and then complain publicly about it all later. I would keep it to myself, put it up on some real estate site, and make like I'm getting zillions, so some other person can buy it and take it off my hands, like the person I bought it from.
Some tenants with rent stabilization are paying very high rents since rent stabilized rents can go up to $2000, maybe even a little more than that now. Some people make very good money and still live in rent stablized apts, and some landlords are making good money with the rents of rent stabilized apts. But most of these are in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens. Some are also in the Bronx.
Even one of the poster that victorfox mentions that owns a luxury coop building or 2, admitted in previous threads and posts that he rents a rent stabilized apt in the city, while also owning a large house and land outside of the city. He has even posted photos.
Rent controls and stabilization have been in effect for a half a century.Most of the landlords who own rent stabilized buildings bought after the laws were enacted, knowing the rules,did their math and bought anyway.To whine about something that you bought with wide open eyes and full knowledge of all the defects is ridiculous.If they did the math.....doesn't everyone do the math before buying anything?... they must have concluded that it was a good investment and that it would be profitable.
Lots of big real estate investors think NYC stabilized buildings are quite profitable: Siegel to keep $300M Bronx apartment portfolio affordable | Real Estate Weekly | Find Articles at BNET
Great article bluedog2. It also confirms that only investors that can absorb the losses should buy this type of real estate. These companies have many profitable properties, including commercial real estate.
I know the rent stabilized system very well and I'm telling you that the only people that truly benefit from rent stabilization are the older tenants that have been living in their apartments 15+ years.
New tenants moving into vacant rent stabilized apartments are paying right at or just about the FAIR market rent for the area. So whats the point of having rent stabilization on the books if it only applies to a certain "lucky" few if everyone else is paying fair rent?
I have 4 deregulated apartments in the building I manage in the Bronx. Their legal rents went over $2,000 thats how they became deregulated. Even though the LEGAL rent is over $2,000 a month and even though the apartment is NO LONGER rent stabilized, I still CANNOT charge $2,000 a month in rent even if I wanted to for those apartments despite the fact that they are deregulated because my market CANNOT BARE it. No one will rent it at that price. The rent that I have to charge is the same amount I was charging when the apartment was rent stabilized. In this case, $1,750 for a 3 bedroom apartment.
The only difference is the apartment is deregulated now but the rent price is the SAME. But wait a minute...isn't rent stabilization designed to provide cheap rent for NYers? Yet I'm charging the same amount I did when the apartment was under rent stabilization...hmmmm.
So when I see liberals (democrats) trying to push a new bill to raise the deregulated threshold from $2,000 to $2,700, in order to "preserve" affordable rents, they have no idea or too stupid to understand that raising the threshold just to keep the apartment rent stabilized will NOT affect rents and doesn't not keep a rent stabilized apartment affordable. At least not in the Bronx.
So I would like to know why all the PRO-Rent Stabilized people on this board fear or are against deregulation since it has NO baring in rent prices.
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.
