Gothamist: Rent Hikes Proposed, Frenzy Ensues

Christine

Fri, 06 May 2005 23:14:39 -0500

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.

Eb Scrooge

Thu, 05 May 2005 20:25:13 -0500

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.

mk

Thu, 05 May 2005 09:30:41 -0500

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.

Eb Scrooge

Thu, 05 May 2005 04:54:09 -0500

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.

ks

Thu, 05 May 2005 00:26:41 -0500

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.

nola

Wed, 04 May 2005 20:23:36 -0500

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.

Eb Scrooge

Wed, 04 May 2005 17:13:12 -0500

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.

nola

Wed, 04 May 2005 17:02:18 -0500

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.

Eb Scrooge

Wed, 04 May 2005 15:51:23 -0500

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.

nola

Wed, 04 May 2005 15:20:43 -0500

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.

yahoo

Wed, 04 May 2005 13:22:18 -0500

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.

kim

Wed, 04 May 2005 13:21:10 -0500

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.

Kojak

Wed, 04 May 2005 11:28:38 -0500

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.

Blike Moomberg

Wed, 04 May 2005 10:38:32 -0500

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.

KeithS

Wed, 04 May 2005 10:26:20 -0500

People carrying signs is always a sign of highly intelligent discourse.