AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Rihanna's Random Airport Search
Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
It's that time of year again: Landlords are tryin to increase the rents for stabilized apartments, of which there are about 1 million in the city. Tonight, the Rent Guidelines Board is set to hear the landlords' arguments, who claim that oil costs necessitate increases of 6.5% for one-year leases and 10.5% for two-year leases; to put that in perspective, last year the hikes were 3.5% and 6.5% for one- and two-year leases respectively. Gothamist looked at the Rent Guideline Board's most recent study of landlord operating costs, and that study says costs have increased 5.8% (driven by a 20% increase in oil costs). We don't like rent increases, but this does make a 6.5% seem reasonable, though a 10.5% a little out of control.
Read the study, 2005 Price Index of Operating Costs, as a PDF. And check out The Ask Gothamist Guide to Real Estate. Plus, we expect people to protest the hearing tonight with crafty signs.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Those paying stabilized rents deserve a raise to be in synch with the reality of the rest of us. Their free ride should be coming to an end. Besides, Brooklyn could use a lot more residents, especially since WB will now be the next Hoboken.
My salary went up by 3% last year, but my healthcare and transit costs increased, making my salary increase negligable. Thank goodness my landlords didn't raise my rent. It's hardly a free ride - even with rent stabilization most NYers pay a much higher percentage of their salaries for housing than nearly anyone else in this country.
Anyone know what's the percentage of NYC renters that live in rent-stabilized or rent-controlled apartments? I've lived in NYC all my life and I don't know a single person that lives in one.
I do and this building here in spanis harlem does. My dad pays like 200 per month , while my neighbor pays 80 bux because they lived their over 40 years...
I moved into a rent stabilized apartment in Washington Heights three years ago. It just happened to be rent stabilized, I was young and sick of having roomates. I took the nicest place I could afford. For me the point of a rent stabilized apartment is not that it's some sort of welfare, but that the rents rise in an orderly fashion. It's not $1500 on year and then marked up to $2000 the next. Besides, why wouldn't I try to lock in a good price while my salary grows?
According to the 2000 Census, there were 3 million occupied housing units in the city. 2.1 million were renter-occupied, the rest owner-occupied.
A 10.5% increase on 2-year leases isn't unreasonable given a 5.8% increase in annual costs, especially on a below-market apartment.
whoa, danny, really? I have a next door neighbor, 50 years in the building with a monster apartment. I wonder what she pays. I pay about a grand. Maybe this sounds bad, but they're in their mid-80s and I want that place the second they leave (however that happens).
Don't confuse rent-stabilized with rent-controlled. Very few apts. in this city are rent-controlled (a la the mythical $200 a month palace) but I believe any apt. under $2,000/mo. is rent-stabilized.
Rent stabilization is fairly common in the five boroughs; over a million apartments are rent stabilized.
An apartment is rent stabilized if it's in a building of six or more units built before 1974, and its legal rent is under $2000/month.
Rent *controlled* apartments (not to be confused with *stabilized*) are the rare jewels. Those are the ones with fixed low rates. Those must have been occupied continuously since 1971.
Read Housing NYC for more info.
Bear in mind that New York arguably caused its own mess with rent stabilization. It's a mess that is very difficult to get out of.
These link bring up the studied effects of rent regulation and how it raises prices:
How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing
Why Is Manhattan So Expensive?
In my building on the Lower East Side, my landlord accidentally mailed out a list of what every tenant paid for three of their buildings. Needless to say I was shocked--I found that my neighbor who is a vocal advocate for tenants rights has a huge three bedroom apartment for $800, while I squeeze into a tiny converted 1 bedroom (or 2 bedroom as they call it) with my roommate for double that amount. One of my neighbors is living in a rent controlled apartment--three bedrooms for $98.00 per month. That is not a typo. Explain to me how that's fair.
The problems with rent regulation will eventually fade away with inflation, once the $2000 expiration line engulfs all apartments. New York will be affordable again once a can of Pepsi costs $100.
Thanks for the info.
"I believe any apt. under $2,000/mo. is rent-stabilized. "
But only before a certain date right? In any case, that creates an artificial price level. What landlord in his right mind is going to rent an apartment out for less than $2000 if he knows he's going to be subject to more restrictions? That rule might help some people, but it sounds like it would definitely hurt the rest.
It is based on when the building was constructed and the number of units it has.
The $437.88/mo rent stabilized 1BR apartment I had in the East Village for two years now rents for $1,500, and is not stabilized any longer. I was subletting and I got the boot. I enjoyed it while it lasted!
Rent stabilized means that the landlord can't suddenly decide that your $1000 a month rent goes up to $2000 when you sign a new lease. My apt. is rent stabilized and im sure as hell not getting a free ride K. Rent controlled are the apartments that people have been paying $100 a month for a 6 bedroom apartment they've lived in since 1940.
My point is, rents should be priced at a fair market value; in other words what meets demand. No annual increases outpacing inflation or rise in costs, yet no "stabilization" unless it's low-income housing. I pay a lot for my tiny apartment, but it's what I'm willing to spend. In no way however would I be willing to compensate for someone else getting a great deal on a place because of some outdated law.
>>>>Those paying stabilized rents deserve a raise to be in synch with the reality of the rest of us. Their free ride should be coming to an end.
Want to raise rents? Raise salaries at the same rate too.
The so-called "affordable housing" is affordable for who? Not my price range.
If it wasn't for rent stabilization I'd be in a trailer park in Jersey someplace, if I had it that good.
To steal from one of the articles linked above:
Rent control is a disease of the mind that soon becomes a disease of the market. Those cities that resist infection --merely by having a healthy tolerance for the rights of others--are rewarded with a normal competitive housing market in which housing is available at every price level. Those cities that succumb to the disease of rent control are doomed to never-ending, house-to-house warfare over an everdiminishing supply of unaffordable housing. Public policy creates its own rewards.
Let's say 10 people live in a 10-unit building with equal sized 1-bedroom apartments in the East Village. Half pay $1600/month, the other half pay $400/month. That's a total of $10,000/month the landlord gets in rent.
The owner has to pay for the whole building regardless of what each tenant pays. The people paying the higher rent are making up for the lower rent people. If there was no regulation, everyone's rent would eventually even out, so that the rent would be more like $1000/month for a 1-bedroom in the East Village, and the landlord gets exactly the same money.
Then add the factor of more competition, because without regulation there'd be twice as many available units (because people wouldn't hoard their low-rent apartments). The rent would then be whittled to about $800/month for a 1-bedroom apartment in the East Village. So $800/month isn't as affordable as $400, but at least it's not $1600. This is kindergarten economics. There would be an abundance of mid-priced apartments affordable for regular middle-class. The case has been made over and over again...the few cities that have rent regulations are insanely more expensive than other comparable cities. Compare the heavily regulated New York and San Fran to the less regulated Chicago and Philly. All of these cities have high population densities and are desirable to live in....
The problem with getting rid of rent regulation is that it will cause chaos if it's cut too fast. It needs to be weaned away. How that can be done.......is anyone's guess. Whoever can think of the best way is a genius.
it seems to me that rent control/stabilization should be available to everyone or no one. Let the free market go or regulate it - struggling folks without these protections shouldn't subsidize the lucky ones with them through higher rents.
The members of the Rent Guidelines Board are appointed by Michael R. Bloomberg.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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 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.
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 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?
"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.
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!
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?
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.
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!!!
Loooks like K got owned by sp pretty bad.
something for nothing? I guess my $1300 a month rent stabalized 1 bedroom is noting.
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