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.
Does anyone have stats on the number of rent-stabilized units in the city (in absolute numbers and in percentages)? Would losing them all really create such a huge supply of units that there would be a very noticeable depreciation in the fair market value price of places? Also, are there stipulations on how people can lose their rent-stabilized apartments if caught doing illicit activities?
Also, how substantial are the subsidies provided to landlords who rent to section 8 and the like?
Does anyone have stats on the number of rent-stabilized units in the city (in absolute numbers and in percentages)? Would losing them all really create such a huge supply of units that there would be a very noticeable depreciation in the fair market value price of places? Also, are there stipulations on how people can lose their rent-stabilized apartments if caught doing illicit activities?
Also, how substantial are the subsidies provided to landlords who rent to section 8 and the like?
If I'm not mistaken, there are about 1.3 MILLION rent stabilized apartments throughout the whole 5 boroughs.
As far as Section 8 subsidies, section 8 pays TOP DOLLAR for the Bronx rental market ONLY simply because the FAIR market rents in the Bronx are about $250 cheaper than Queens and Brooklyn. Forget about Manhattan since the MAX section 8 will pay for an apartment falls way below what the fair market rent goes for in Manhattan so landlords opt NOT to choose section 8 tenants for this reason among other obvious reasons as well.
This creates a HUGE problem for the quality of life of the Bronx and it's future because it introduces many "knuckle heads" from Brooklyn, Queens and Harlem to flee to the Bronx where Bronx landlords unfortunately are excepting section 8 vouchers with open arms since the rents section 8 pays are MORE than what they can get if renting to a REGULAR WORKING middle-class family. While Brooklyn, Queens and especially Manhattan shy away from excepting Section 8 tenants, Bronx landlords freely except them for finanicial purposes. So what does that say about the future of the Bronx????
The problem is that the Bronx becomes a dumping ground for low-income/section 8 people which further DEGRADES the borough. We have enough of these people in the Bronx as is, why introduce more? We should be getting rid of them not accepting more. When a neighborhood begins to DEGRADE by inroducing a class of people that have a lower standard of living (a.k.a. ghetto) than yours, the working middle class begin to flee from the neighborhood, borough and even State because it is NO LONGER a desirable place to live.
It doesn't help matters when 2 years ago liberal democrat Andrew Cuomo (who wants to become our next Governor and who I will NOT vote for) introduces a bill which eventually passes that states that landlords can NO LONGER deny a section 8 tenant and that it is considered "discrimination" if they do which puts them at risk for a law suit. What kind of message does that send to landlords who usually regulate the type of people they want in their buildings in order to keep it desirable? Its pretty much an open invitation for these ghetto class of people to infiltrate uncurrupted neighborhoods and ultimately corrupt them with their lifestyle. It gives these people more rights than they deserve considering the poor behavior conduct they express. Yes I know...not every low income person is ghetto but there is an over whelming percentage that are and this law protects them.
Prior to this bill, landlords can OPENLY deny a section 8 tenants without consequence and help preserve the working middle class in the Bronx. Laws such as this and others are designed polarize NY. And the Bronx will be the hardest hit. If you don't believe me, give it a few more years and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. So much for the Bronx gentrifying. What a shame. And you can thank the wonderful democrats for this.
Last edited by victorfox; 02-26-2010 at 02:28 PM..
It should ne noted that many landlords refuse to take in Section 8 landlords due to how difficult Section 8 tenants are to get evict. What most people don't know is that, should a tenant fail to keep up with the Section 8 requirements, Section 8 will stop paying the landlord rent until the Section tenant straightens out the situation, during which time months can go by. And should the landlord try to evict a tenant, Section will actually provide a lawer for the tenant, and the hapless landlord is left paying for lawer out his/her pocket.
The Bronx, unfortunately, still appears to be the dumping ground for the city, but I don't buy any of that doom and gloom talk about the Bronx declining. Believe me, it's only getting better. It's a lot better then it was a mere 10 years ago. Sure, theconomy has somewhat caused to make once-flourishing neighborhoods (Concourse, Parkchester, Pelham Parkway, etc.) to become stagnant, but they're not getting worse. Once the economy picks up again, the Bronx will continue to improve.
Does anyone have stats on the number of rent-stabilized units in the city (in absolute numbers and in percentages)? Would losing them all really create such a huge supply of units that there would be a very noticeable depreciation in the fair market value price of places? Also, are there stipulations on how people can lose their rent-stabilized apartments if caught doing illicit activities?
Also, how substantial are the subsidies provided to landlords who rent to section 8 and the like?
3.3 Million total housing units in the city
1.1 Million owner-occupied
1.1 Million Rent-Stabilized (including 40,000 rent controlled)
The other 1.1 million is something like 600,000-750,000 market-rate rentals and 300,000 or so public housing and other government-controlled units.
So, it's something like 57% of the units are market (owner-occupied + market rate rentals).
The sources on the top three numbers can be found here:
If someone doesn't believe the last one (the breakdown of the last 1.1 million units), I can track down a better source, but I am sure the numbers are the ballpark.
Landlords who want to charge market rate rentals so that they can cover costs and make a profit will have to charge an exorbitant amount of rent. They do now and probably always will. I do not buy the argument that if all of the apartments were free market, the rental rates would actually drop and there would be more apartments. In theory this may be true, but the reality is that there is too much greed for this to be true.
The high market rental rates can only be paid by those who are making a salary in the high six figures. But the reality is that the people who can afford the high rents would much prefer to own and often go on to purchase an apartment in one of the boroughs. It would just make better sense. Why pay someone 3500-5000 per month if a mortgage and maintenance rate would be about the same.
With the cost in real estate dropping in NYC and around the tri-state, people are leaving their rentals to purchase coops and condos. Those who want to remain renters have so many options to choose from as landlords are having a hard time finding renters now and many of them have had to lower the rent simply to be competitive and get renters. And this has nothing to do with rent stabilization, it is just the state of our economy, the lack of jobs and the fact that people cannot pay exorbitant amounts of rent.
Landlords who want to charge market rate rentals so that they can cover costs and make a profit will have to charge an exorbitant amount of rent. They do now and probably always will. I do not buy the argument that if all of the apartments were free market, the rental rates would actually drop and there would be more apartments. In theory this may be true, but the reality is that there is too much greed for this to be true.
Can you explain this?
If you can get the same exact product (in this case, an apartment for rent) for $1,000, would you pay $1,200? If a "greedy" landlord wants to charge more than one of his competitors does for a product, then the consumer will choose to purchase the good from his competitor. I don't see how you can say that this is true in theory but not so in reality.
If you can get the same exact product (in this case, an apartment for rent) for $1,000, would you pay $1,200? If a "greedy" landlord wants to charge more than one of his competitors does for a product, then the consumer will choose to purchase the good from his competitor. I don't see how you can say that this is true in theory but not so in reality.
No matter what you say Gradstudent, she as well as any pro-rent stabilization advocate will alway raise an argument to counter the LAW of supply and demand. We base our statements on facts which is the law of Supply and Demand. We know it works and EVERY businessman knows it works. It's a proven fact and a proven formula. Her statements are simply opinions that are NOT backed by any facts. Once you start messing with the law of Supply and Demand, you get the train wreck of NYC RENT STABILIZATION. (ALL 5 BOROUGHS)
low paid jobs in high priced cities have one advantage, demand, they will hire you.
(assuming you actually wanted to work)
as to yuppies moving in, that is racism flying under radar.
they say white flight when whites leave, they say gentrification when whites move in.
entitlement people howl either way.
its an attempt to explain global cause and effect by skin tone.
the argument get rough however when orientals move in
and then jews
then somalis
then the gentrification game begins to look very much
like 3rd reich
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 03-01-2010 at 07:27 AM..
What I mean by greed is quite simple. Landlords will stick to their prices and not come down even if people are unwilling to pay it. We see this now with apartments for rent that are overpriced and are still available because landlords are unwilling to bow to the laws of supply and demand.
So if we remove rent stabilization, do you really think that these same landlords will be any more flexible. I think not.
Also, history has shown this in this city. We had landlords in the past who were getting full rent and were still slumlords. And this is before the oil crisis etc. This is why the rent stabilization laws exist and why projects and other affordable housing were built. Now that we are no longer building affordable housing, these laws remain in place.
And no one is howling about anything. Simply responding the topic presented. Thanks, good day.
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.
