Smoking Ban May Now Include Your Apartment
Access-A-Ride Nailed by Local News
Giuliani Livid Over Bringing 9/11 Trials to NYC
House Cat Terrorizes Family In Dramatic Hostage Situation
Oreo The Dog Is Dead, Blame Game Is Not
Last night, the Rent Guidelines Board decided to aloow landlords to raise rents in the city's rent-stabilized apartments. The Mayor Bloomberg-appointed board's vote was 5-4, after rejecting one proposed hike that was too high (6% for one-year leases, 9% for two-year), given the wages of many people in affected apartments have eroded; the RGB is now looking at 2-4.5% increase for one-year leaves and 4-7% for two year leases. Both landlords and tenants in attendance went, to put it lightly, nuts. Landlords argue that the hikes are too low, given rising cost of oil, while tenants think any kind of rent hike is too high - one protestor was eventually arrested after RGB chairman called the police to remove some protestors. One apartment owner explained, "What they need to do is raise the rates of apartments being rented at low costs, which forces us to raise people who are paying over $1,500. Some tenants pay $300 a month, which doesn't cover the cost of the unit." Other landlord associations say these low hikes incent their members to turn buildings into condos. One tenant advocate said he was hoping for an increase of just 2-3%, which seems low to us for landlords to keep up with other expenses.
Another hearing will be held in June, with the final decision to be made on June 21. Newsday has a look at what the rent hikes were in past years, and there are some really interesting discussion in our post yesterday about the rent hikes.
Photo of protesting renters from Newsday
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
People carrying signs is always a sign of highly intelligent discourse.
Recall that rent increases were at 2% and 4%, before Bloomberg. Then he appointed his people to the Rent Guidelines board. And he made the highest property tax hike in NYC history. The guidelines board followed suit, and we saw huge increases last year to 3.5% and 6.5%. Now, just a couple of years later, we're looking at rent increases that are breaking 10%. Do you want this to continue? Then don't vote for Bloomberg.
10% is a little steep, even for Bloomberg. Depends on the state of the economy in a few years, but we'll see. At most I think it'll be double the inflation rate. Thats acceptable.
Hell ,I'd kill for a $300 rent controlled apartment, even in Harlem or Washington Heights.
Hey Kojak,
They're not talking about rent-controlled apartments. This is about rent-stabilized apartments. Most of these rents are between $800 and (max) $2000 per month, and the average income of a rent stabilized apartment dweller is less than $30,000/annually.
Why can't the owners charge whatever they want to? Free economy. Open market. If I put my house up for sale, I don't want someone to determine how much I can sell it for. Why is this any different? If I price myself out of the market then so be it.
I love the professional signs these freeloaders are all waving. Are they too lazy to make their own? It must be a steep rent increase to get these layabouts off the couch. If you can't afford NYC, move somewhere else.
Wow, I'm stunned that so many presumably intellligent members of the cyber hipoisie would, perhaps out of jealousy, come down on the side of landlords, legendary for their incredible greed, neglect and indifference to their own properties and certainly to the human lives of their tenants.
Rent STABILIZATION was enacted to prevent nyc from becoming what it is becoming, a place where only the rich can afford to live. Landlords obviously have managed to make money through the life of the law, otherwise they wouldn't be i business (and if you think scotching the law would cause a decline in abandoned bldgs, think again. They're abandoned because they're in the middle of nowhere). Many, many landlords profit through tax incentives and malignant neglect of of their own properties. Spend any time in the hell that is Housing Court for corroboration of this.
Rent Stabilization allows MIDDLE INCOME people to live in the city they have as much right to live in as anyone else, paying reasonable rents (that $300 rent STABILIZED apt is as much urban myth as alligators in the sewer, most tenants with rent stabilized leases pay far, far more). Ir encodes and contains enforcement mechanisms for tenants' rights to heat, hot water and the "habitability" of their apartments. It's something that should be fought for and protected.
And remember a 7 perctnt increase on a $1000 apt is $70 a month. For you elitist hipoisie, I know that represents a night of drinking But for working people $840 a year is real money.
Nobody has a right to live in any particular city if they can't afford to pay for it. Lots of people would like to live in Beverly Hills but can't. The free market isn't perfect but it produces more better quality housing than any other system.
Nola, the excellent housing stock which you refer to was built before and during rent regulation. In recent years, we've seen crap buildings made out of ticky tacky, prone to leaks etc. Even the rich are not immune, viz. Richard Meier bldgs in W. Village. This is what the profit motive has wrought.
As I said, in absolute terms, rent stabilized tenants pay high rates. $1200 a month for a closet is a big bundle, lease or no. Rent Stabilzation affords some measure of protection to middle class tenants, a degree that's ever diminishing.
The city belongs to all of us not just to stockbrokers who think nothing of $12 cocktails and for whom $2500 a month for a shithole is a trifle.
You may not like the profit motive but try living someplace where it is stifled. The housing stock in East Germany was no great shakes. I am in that middle class and wish I could afford better housing but that's life. It isn't the government's job to decide who can afford to live where.
Obviously "Eb Scrooge" is looking for government handouts. He thinks he deserves to live in the city when he cannot afford to. He is envious of those that can.
ks, your logic borders on the moronic. Under rent stabilization, tenants are STILL paying high rents, they're just not quite yet through-the-poorly-maintained roof. Landlords have utilized gaping loopholes in the Rent Stabilization law to jack up rents considerably. These include the making of capital improvements, the over-renovation of vacated apartments--and even the 20 percent increase in rent that they're automatically entitled to once an apartment turns over.
So nobody's receiving, or asking for, a free ride. All that's being argued for and legislated for is a liveable rent to keep this a liveable city.
Society is about more than the profit motive. It's also about the common good. Governement ideally should embody the ideals of society living in COMMUNITY, not as a bunch of monads seeking their own self satisfaction at the expense of others. I guess ks thinks social security and medicare are government handouts as well. Fortunately there's a man for you and he's in the White House.
Nothing good could come from ending Rent Stabilization. The housing stock won't improve. Services to tenants won't get better. Landlords are incented to take as much money whild giv ing as little as possible. That's that Profit Motive.
Fortunately, in the 40s and 50s, legislators had the foresight to protect the city against this kind of rapaciousness. And so landlords are compelled to do things they might not otherwise do. Like provide heat and hot water for example.
Rent regulations have served the city well. We must fight for them and against the obscene rent increases landlords would inflict against tenants with every voice, vote and protest sign, pre=printed or otherwise that we've got.
Common good? Livable rent? Who the hell do you think you are? You might as well wave The Red Book and praise the Third Reich.
I am all about my bottom line. The city is affordable. TO ME! If I owned a building I want to charge as much as I can. That's free economy. As is, other tenants are subsidizing your $1500 rent. Bad maintenance? Leaky roof? MOVE! You have options just as I do. Except I have more money therefore more options. Stop being jealous.
mk, contrary to what you may have learned in the Gordon Gecko School of Social Policy, greed ISN'T good. $1500 for a studio in a godforsaken part of town is plenty of money for a landlord to earn a profit from and enough to earn legitimate protections for a tenant. Including the right to plan a life against some usurous rent increase.
To see how rent deregulation has ruined the character of so many neighborhoods, all you have to do is check out businesss rents. The reason why so many of the little stores that you loved to shop in have given way to Starbux and Gaps and their like is greedy landlords who jacked up the rents to ridiculous extremes. Their greed is so great, in fact, that even many of these mall-like businesses can't make it so many, many storefronts remain empty creating a ghost-like impression
Now, of course that's business and there's a legitimate argument for dereguation there. But for residences, there are people's lives at stake.
It's probably useless to argue the values of liberal society to a joker who likens them to Maoism and Nazi-ism, a particularly distasteful argument. You are admittedly selfish, self-absorbed and think about your needs above all others. So enjoy your fifteen dollar drinks, your gas guzzling cars, litter the streets, don't recycle your cans. Because we wouldn't want to inconvenience you in any way with the needs of the community at large.
Ed, I completely agree with you. I grew up in NYC and have sadly watched the neighborhoods that used to have charm, ethnic identity, and individually owned shops give way to Starbucks, Pottery Barn, etc. Whoever is arguing for pure free market rent prices has no real understanding of the living situations of most rent stabilized or rent controlled apt dwellers. Many have lived here FOR YEARS, and deserve protection from landlords who simply want to get the most they possibly can whenever they can. The people fighting to maintain their rent-stabilized protection are simply trying to preserve their ability to stay in their homes and have a life for themselves that doesn't consist of hopping from one apt or town to the next each year as the rent pushes them out. The irony is that what, in my opinion, made New York great, was the artists and individually owned stores, and ethnic flavors of the neighborhoods. As the influx of people who flocked to NYC to enjoy these very unique things continued, and Landlords were able to jack up whatever rent they could, they have almost completely pushed out what attracted them there in the first place! All this has happened WITH rent control/stabilization! I can't imagine what would happen without the protection!
As for me, I no longer live in New York because I cannot afford to, and quite frankly don't have a desire to pay over $2000 for a room in a neighborhood with the same store options I can now get from any mall in America.