The Rent Stabilization Association has sued the Rent Guidelines Board to raise the rents of tenants in rent-regulatd apartments. This year's rent increases, already much maligned by tenants, are 2.75% for one-year leases and 5.5% for two-year leases, which is too low for the RSA, which says that heating costs and taxes have outpaced that increase. Tenants rights group, the Metropolitan Council on Housing, tells Newsday, "It's outrageous the landlords are suing for even more when they don't deserve what they got in the first place," but the RSA says the lawsuit is really to get the Rent Guidelines Board to "release how it determines the rent hikes." You know, in the court of public opinion, landlords are always going to get a bum rap when their colleagues are engaging in emotional and sometimes physical warfare with tenants. If there's only group of New Yorkers that needs a PR consultant, it would be these knuckleheads.





said it before and i'll say it again: if you're a landlord, and the amount of money you're making isn't satisfactory, do what the rest of the world does and FIND A NEW LINE OF WORK. no one put a gun to your head and forced you to become a landlord.
there are plenty of self-employed people who feel like market conditions stop them from making the profit that they think they should... yet, for whatever reason, can't raise their prices. they either accept it or find something else to do. it's really quite simple – why landlords feel like they are uniquely entitled to a certain quality of life has always baffled me.
Ahh yes, another idiot poster.
Did it occur to you what would happen if there were no landlords? You are obviously renting because you are too damn poor to buy a place yourself.
Inflation is now well above 2.75%, and with utilities being the #1 cost for landlords after RE taxes, their expenses have increased WELL over 2.75%.
This happened in the 1970's too, and you know what happened? Landlords DID just pick up and leave and huge numbers of people were left with apartment buildings that had no management what so ever.
Rent control only hurts those of us unlucky enough to not have a regulated apartment, but limiting the rent increases to such a tiny amount is going to put landlords out of business. Do you really think any landlord is going to go into debt to pay for the rising costs of gas? No way... He is just going to tell tenants they are on their own.
You are going to pay one way or another, either as rent to a landlord, or you will have to turn your building into a co-op when the landlord abandons the property.
These squabbles/lobbying efforts on how much landlords can statutorily raise rents only exist because of rent control/rent stabilization. The law creates a massive distortion in the market, and people are pushed into legal and publicity battles centering on how this law works, rather than on developing better housing. The economists' term of art actually is "rent seeking".
Jimmy McMillan for Mayor.
http://nyccfb.info/debates_vg/voter_guides/general_2005/cd_profile/M_McMillan_D4.aspx
Did it occur to you what would happen if there were no landlords? You are obviously renting because you are too damn poor to buy a place yourself.
a) there will always be landlords. as in every other business, one man's pittance is another man's riches (or something like that).
b) i own my apartment in the west village – paid $1.6 million, put 50% down.
c) you're a moron.
Cheng-Jih Chen, totally agreed. This is basic: landlords are not evil; the evil is the absurd byzantine system of rent regulations that we have that make both renters and landlords do silly things.
Those regulations are there to benefit mostly the tenants, not the landlords.
If the landlords had their way, who knows how many more homeless you would see on the street.
And that’s the truth.
Kojak,
Check out Boston's history of deregulation. In 1995, Boston did away with most of its rent regulations and at first witnessed price increases. But eventually prices leveled and Boston did not experience significant amounts of homelessness and recently has seen rents prices going down. F-U to Jimmy McMillan, I need to start my own End Rent Control party.
Rent regulations benefit a particular group of tenants who hold leases on rent controlled/rent stabilized apartments. These regulations do not benefit tenants as a whole: those without such leases will pay higher rents than would otherwise be the case, because the regulations have a negative impact on housing stock. It's the members of the middle class who are outside of rent control that are being squeezed: they either have to do relatively absurd things to try to get a rent controlled lease (or live in an illegal sublet from the lease holder), or they have to cough up a lot more money for newer apartments. Choices in the middle of the housing stock are vanishing because of these regulations.
If you care about housing, there are more sensible public policy positions to take than maintaining rent control. Housing vouchers, for one: they'll be less market distortion than is currently being caused by what we have now.
Man - i'm just waiting for the city to set up the 'milk price board' so that I can can get my two cents in on that! Thank the almighty that this is the year 2005 and we live in america...
Man - i'm just waiting for the city to set up the 'milk price board' so that I can can get my two cents in on that! Thank the almighty that this is the year 2005 and we live in america...
said it before and i'll say it again: if you're a tenant, and the amount of money you're paying in rent isn't satisfactory, do what the rest of the world does and FIND A NEW HOME. no one put a gun to your head and forced you to become a tenant.
there are plenty of self-employed people who feel like market conditions stop them from living in the apartment that they think they should... yet, for whatever reason, can't raise their incomes. they either accept it or find something else to do. it's really quite simple – why tenantsfeel like they are uniquely entitled to a certain quality of life has always baffled me.