Hi everyone!!

Why are people angry with people who live in rent stabalized

apartements?

My family an i live on the lower east side.

Thank G-D for rent stabaliz!!!!

We came here when no one wanted to live here.

Our railroad apt. is our HOME.

The pioneers of the lower easdt side G-D bless them.

BE WELL!!!

kim charles turim

turim@earthlink.net

something for nothing? I guess my $1300 a month rent stabalized 1 bedroom is noting.

Loooks like K got owned by sp pretty bad.

I wonder if they should regulate Le Bernadin, Alain Ducasse, Per Se and Masa so I don't have to eat at McD and Whitecastle. Better yet, regulate D&G, DKNY, Versace!!!

Chris M, your absolutely right about Manhattan and SF real estate. So let me put it this way. If someone could not afford to live in Manhattan or SF, then they should not live in Manhattan or SF. No one will throw you a pity party if you move to Queens or Oakland.

Yes, SOME costs are up.

"RPIE [Real Property Income and Expense] filings include data on eight categories of operating and maintenance (O&M) costs: taxes; labor; utilities; fuel; insurance; maintenance; administrative and miscellaneous costs."

--from the Rent Guidelines Board study (in PDF) at

http://www.housingnyc.com/html/research/cresearch.html

I don't understand this. How is mortgage not included? Mortgage rates are low, and the mortgage is almost always the largest component of a property owner's TOTAL costs.

Oh -- did I answer my own question?

Supply and demand kids! If you can't afford it, look else where. The government does not need to interfere with a competitive market. You guys support rent-stab/control because you want something for nothing. If you can't afford a Mercedes, go buy a Honda. If you can't afford a Honda, go buy a moped. If you can't afford a moped, walk. Get over it!

"more units would bring down overall prices."

complete nonsense. There are multitudes of empty apartment buildings, such as the Trump buildings on the westside highway, that are sitting EMPTY because no one can afford them. The Trump ones in particular have been there for almost a decade. The truth is its all about greed. Landlords would rather have their apartments stay empty and take a tax loss than rent them out at what the market can bare. This free market excuse is just a that, a bullshit excuse for shortsighted and greedy landlords who couldnt care less about the community.

"I work hard for my money. Sorry to the financially inept readers out there, but you don't deserve any more rights than I do."

You have the right like everyone else to get yourself a rent stabilized aptartment. There are plenty of them available. Why does being in a rent stabilized apartment mean we are a) less hard working and b) financially inept? Thats complete idiocy. Just because you dont benefit from a law doesnt mean it shouldnt be in place.

I lived in Boston for five years, and my landlord would give himself 10% raises every year for absolutely nothing in return in terms of the building's maintenance or improvements. It was accept the new lease, or move. Thats what you want? No rights at all? Its scandalous. I think there should be MORE regulations, not less.

Back to your poorly articulated point, we all pay taxes for services some of us dont use. I dont have kids, but I'm happy to pay taxes for a public education system. Many people in the city dont drive, but they pay taxes for a federal highway system that they will never use. Its part of being a member of society. Or are you like Margaret Thatcher and dont believe there is such thing as society?

There would be a lot more apartments built if developers didnt have to deal with regulations stating x% must be low or moderate income, etc,etc. If the developer feels that he can get maximum value with minimun hassle and regulation he will build. At the same time, more units would bring down overall prices. Right now we have a system where some lucky ones pay less and others make the difference. IMO, the system needs to die and regular market based forces should be unshackled. Also, I work like a dog to live in NYC, if I couldnt afford my rent, I would have to move, its life, hard, plain and simple... I don't expect others to pick up the slack for me so I can live the lifestyle I want.

I'm rent stabilized too. Since somehow our backstories are relevant--I won't get into details, but I've been through so many government agencies in the five boroughs that it's not even funny. I'm just now finally getting on my feet. So please stop assuming that anyone who is against rent stabilization is somehow a rich person who doeesn't understand struggle, because believe me I haven't even told you the beginning.

We are struggling because of these high rents....caused by an artificial housing shortage. Some people say that Manhattan is too dense to build any more, but that's false. Many cities in Europe have an even denser population and their rents aren't doing the same thing as ours. Look at our zoning limits and how it limited housing construction during Giuliani's time--incidentally, that's when rents started to balloon. Conspiracy theorists might say that Giuliani limited new housing on purpose, because he knew it would give tons of money to landlords for doing nothing.

Some of us read, and actually do research--if you look at the data, you'll see that we're being duped. Screwed. I don't understand how anyone can even say on here that rents are low and fair with stabilization. Look around! Go on Craigslist and find me examples to the contrary and I'll shut up. Everyone knows rents are super-high. Rents will never be low unless stabilization goes or the crime raises to late 80s-early '90s level to make the city so undesireable that rents have to fall. Another effect of stabilization is that it causes tension between neighbors. I for one find it really hard to relate to a tenant activist who has an apartment triple the size of mine for half the price.

But please, I'm telling you--I'm not against rent stabilized tenants--I am a stabilized tenant myself. A couple of years ago I hunted and found a nice stabilized little nook on the LES for a price that is less than what I paid back in Brooklyn. But I wish I didn't *have* to be stabilized simply to be able to *barely* afford it. And it sucks knowing that all of these high prices are caused not by yuppies, landlords, activists or the poor.....they're caused by bad politics.

Well, K, perhaps some people make up for financial ineptitude with the ability to locate rent-stablized apartments. Sort of a Darwinian adaptation if you will. The market rewards those who seek out and take advantage of the opportunities it provides, after all.

I'm no Harvard professor of economics, but I seriously doubt that, had rent regulation never existed, Manhattan would be a market-controlled paradise of real estate with rental opportunities for all income levels. Real estate in cities like New York and San Francisco in particular are at least as heavily affected by restrictive geography (Manhattan island, San Fran's peninsula, etc.). Manhattan real estate will always fetch a premium, and I'm willing to bet there will always be more tenants than apartments. Ergo, if it was all market-controlled, upmarket renters would edge out the less affluent as overlal population increased, the economy improved, and rents increased across the board. Maybe the average of all Manhattan apartment rents would decrease, but I bet it wouldn't be at the behest of some mathematical ideal of lost income that landlords are now being robbed of. And totally market-driven rents would significantly homogenize Manhattan along socioeconomic lines, at least until the next depression or terrorist attack ...

I work hard for my money. Sorry to the financially inept readers out there, but you don't deserve any more rights than I do.

Didn't Boston get rid of rent stabilization? (correct me if I'm wrong). Boston's still one of the most expensive housing markets in the U.S.

Erin, I'm happy for you, but what gives you the right to pay comparatively lower rent than the most of us? This is simply an outdated system; economics (read supply and demand) will win in the end and it's only a matter of time.

Wow, lots of hate for rent-stabilized tenants! I'm one myself, and like other r-s posters, if it weren't for this I don't know where I'd be living. I work for a non-profit, my medical bills are very high (my health insurance doesn't cover it), and I come from poor folks (grew up in the projects).

Rents in the city are lower than they've been in years, due to all the middle-class folks rushing to buy houses and apartments. Landlords are lowering rents and offering deals (free first two months, etc.) to get tenants. (My landlord was asking $1800 for a large completely renovated one-bedroom. My now-neighbor counteroffered $1200, and my landlord jumped at it!) So how will getting rid of r-s make the rental market softer? It's soft already!

Hello Erin, you are correct. But you are missing the broad point--if New York never had rent restrictions in the first place, the rents would have never been this high. Read the "Why Is Manhattan So Expensive" link above, written by a Harvard professor of economics, and he explains exactly the science behind it.

But that's retrospect. In actual reality, you are correct--since we are living in rent stabilized apartments, we're stuck. We need it.

But the longer we keep it the worse it gets. We can't keep living at the whims of the rent board, because landlords will usually charge as high as they let them. This 10% raise is a perfect example of being a slave to the rent board. We're fucked.

I lucked out--I personally have a nice landlord who is giving me a discount and giving me lower rent than my stabilized amount....but in every other building I've lived in, the landlord milked me to the hilt. Oddly enough, I'm still paying way more than my neighbor, even with my "discount." I'm barely scraping by, while he has a huge TV and stereo.

And there is a lot to complain about! Rent stabilization seems fair if *you're* paying a low rent, but how can you say that's fair if your upstairs neighbor is paying double for the same exact apartment you have? Our definitions of fair are different.

I live in a rent-stabilized apartment, about to sign a renewal lease, and, you know, if it wasn't for rent-stabilization, I'd be homeless. Actually, if my rent went up 10%, I'd be in trouble. 10% for most of you means an extra $100-200 a month - it's awesome that you can afford that, but not all of us can. I think rent-stabilization (note: stabilization, not control) is fair, especially given how inflated housing costs are in this city. I mean, we luckily live in a city where housing laws really favor the tenant - so what is there to complain about?

The members of the Rent Guidelines Board are appointed by Michael R. Bloomberg.