Rent-Stabilized Rents Look Like They'll Go Up

I live in a rent stabilized apt. in So. Williamsburg and I'm certainly not getting over on anyone. I already pay a fair market price for what I have ($1225/1bdrm) it just happens that it's stabilized. Because it's stabilized and I like the location and my landlord's great, I am encouraged to stay in this neighborhood and put down some roots here instead of hopping from place to place. I think it's great.

Just because an aprtment is stabilized doesn't mean everyone is getting a ridiculous steal.

Stability= a supposedly attainable goal

Power= if you've got it... use it

Rent protections= if you don't ask, you don't get

BUT

If you don't got... don't bitch;

DO something!

"Rent stabilization is POWER. Its about not having to cower in fear of your landlords whims. My apartment is rent stabilized and it feels like a STABLE HOME. I don't have to worry about my landlord deciding he doesn't like the color of my skin and doubling my rent to kick me out. "

YEAH ITS POWER TO YOU - but for the REST OF US PAYING $3,000 rent and ABOVE .. its NOT POWER TO US - and for US to end up with 10% increased rent every year isn't fair EITHER!

Market Rate Tenants' Bulletin Board discussion of their rent increases on renewal leases. There are like 5 or so pages of posts. You might wanna skip through them. Also-at their main "Lease Renewal Experiences" page there is a host of relevant topics & advice. Some, even from the new City Councilman, Dan Garodnick, a lawyer who gave up his practice for the CC job, and who has begun a Market Rate Tenant's Organization.

That is: "Supply and Demand doesn't seem to affect Real Estate like that."

Forget to use Spell checker once...

"If there is more of something, the price will go down. It really is that simple."

Sure, just look at all the "Luxury" apts being built. So many and Yet So NOT affordable...

Supply and Demend doesn't seem to affect Real Estate like that.

Go xnan (#28) and emile (#29) and dtrain (#30)!! You're the only ones who seem to get it. Jack & Tim need to get a clue. If that old lady dies or moves it will require an investment of around $50,000 to reach market rate. Otherwise, the DHCR will grant only nominal & reasonable rent increases. Now, THAT's smart& fair. Also- a crisis vacancy rate is considered 5% or less (Manhattan is around 2%). So adding more luxury housing will do nothing at all to lower current rents. Do your homework before you start whining about your own sour grapes. Jealous much??

Hey Tim, right on! I could have written that. Beautiful.

Um, if that little old lady wasn't in that apt wouldn't that make that one available for a higher price? If there is more of something, the price will go down. It really is that simple.

I couldn't even finish reading this thread because the first few post were written by people who obviously have no clear understanding of rent control nor rent stabilization. Emile seems to be about the one who understands that rent control and rent stablilization are good. They are good for landlords who want to keep stable tenants and not turn over their apts. every year (although in the current market that means more money but all landlords aren't in it to get rich) but better for tenants who are also have a stable place to call home with a predictable increase annually. It keeps the market fair. And in the case of stablization as with market rate apts. you landlord does know your annual income. Too many people start typing comments before they've done their research on the topic. Critical thinking is more than being a critic.

You people are fucking nuts. Deregulating rents would in no way lower overall rents.There's like a 2% vacancy rate in manhattan and a million apartments(all of NYC)wouldn't effect it at all.

Do you really think the only reason landlords are charging $2500 for a 1 bedroom is to offset the little old lady paying $300? Landlords would charge $2500 for newly deregulated spaces, and hordes or rich, BORING, WHITE, people will swarm in from all over the country. Rents would stay the same and thousands of little old ladies would have to live in shelters.

Rent stabilization is POWER. Its about not having to cower in fear of your landlords whims. My apartment is rent stabilized and it feels like a STABLE HOME. I don't have to worry about my landlord deciding he doesn't like the color of my skin and doubling my rent to kick me out.

One of the most important, and oft forgotten, aspects of rent stabilization is the fact that the landlord must offer the current tenant a renewal lease, subsequent to the current one's expiration. Market rate tenants need not be offered a lease renewal and the landlord needn't give ANY reason for their refusal. An example of the rampant, unmitigated greed of landlords who manage mixed dwellings (SCRIE, Rent Stabilized AND Market Rate apts.) would be Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village. There are hundreds (TRULY!!) of Market Rate tenants who signed leases for their apartments after having received assurances that their subsequent leases would reflect "fair" increases, reflective of, and dependent on, the "health" of the current real estate market. Personally, I know of several who were told, by the leasing office, to expect future monthly increases averaging between $100 to $300, for their renewed leases. Imagine their shock when (having been offered lease renewals) they were informed that their next leasing period would instead reflect increases ranging from $800 to $1300 per month!! Failing to factor in the actual cost(s) of moving-- finding your monthly nut increased in increments of 20% to 50% (and at those "luxury" prices nary a doorman nor even a special amenity in sight!!) leaves most people fairly breathless, as it's most unlikely that their income rose accordingly.

NYC's vibrancy & fun has ALWAYS depended on a continuous influx of new, young people. They're looking forward to living & working here; making their mark by creating and participating in new and creative communities. Increasingly priced out of any affordable housing they choose (wisely) to settle elsewhere. Absent a true "middle class," this city becomes a ghetto of only the affluent (or the transient)-- largely dependent on a "service" economy. Ironically, absent some form of "tenant protections" those very same essential services folks would all but vanish. From the delivery guy to the baristas (at the local Starbucks), to the poor shmuck who walks their dogs or makes their Xeroxes, THOSE are the people who couldn't afford to live here. I find it doubtful that they'd be willing to commute 2 hours each way to work at their minimum wage jobs. Hence, the middle class, upon whom the affluent completely rely, will utterly disappear. The stability and safety (read: lower crime rates) that a largely entrenched and intransient population demand would cease to exist; the affluent sharing their turf only with the impoverished (and their public housing projects). There would be no sense of community at all; just a bunch of suburban chain stores, with the project's inhabitants as their only possible employment pool. No more Mom & Pop's. Perhaps some art, but no new artists. No more of the hodgepodge, multi-culti, "beautiful mosaic," Rich man/Poor man flavor that makes New York NEW YORK. Ya might as well move to Houston.

Bloomberg and Pataki: You deregulated me, and now my rent is 4x that of the apartment across the hall. I don't want to subsidize my neighbors just because I'm successful and they're not. Finish the job. Deregulate all city housing NOW. Rents will be lower in the end.

"Half the city would empty out if rent stabilization were ended. $1500-$2000 rents for one bedroom apts would be the norm,"

No it wouldn't. Owners need to attract tenants so the rents would be such that people can afford them. That's the idea of free-market system. Also, the worst buildings would be torn down or renovated. Now there is no incentive whatsoever to renovate (if you are a landlord and get $100/month for a apartment I doubt you would be anxious to update or renovate).

Besides, if you can't afford to live in the most expensive city in the world why should other tenants have to sponsor you? There is no constitutional right that people must be able to live in Manhattan. Same goes for public housing. It makes no sense to spend trillions to keep low-income people in world's most expensive areas. Better, bigger and cheaper apartments would be available in Queens and Bronx.

#22 above omitted two of the three categories of NYC apt's that qualify for stabilization:

Tenants in buildings of six or more units built before February 1, 1947, who moved in after June 30, 1971 are also covered by rent stabilization. A third category of rent stabilized apartments covers buildings with three or more apartments constructed or extensively renovated since 1974 with special tax benefits. Generally, these buildings are stabilized only while the tax benefits continue.

>>>Come on, stablized/controlled people. you know who you are. Most of you can afford a lot more.

I, personally, can't afford more!

And how many of you have elderly relatives that can't afford to pay more than their rent controlled monthly rent because they live off of social security?

I didn't think so...

Nobody mentioned that the majority of New Yorkers in rent control are SENIOR CITIZENS.

But I do agree that anyone who falsifies their income & lives in rent control illegally totally sucks.

I only know ONE person doing this...

Don't worry, not all of us are trying to "get one over on you" so please stop whining...

You're kidding, the Cato institute and the Manhattan Institute.

It will be a cold day in Hell when rents get even close to being reasonable in this City.

The ignorance in these comments is overwhelming. Perhaps there is so much animosity towards these policies because there is so little understanding of them. Inform yourselves, then raise your voices.

To dispell some of the falacies reflected in the comments above:

and i lived in boston for 3 years. and my rent went down in my neighbourhood, the south end, from 2100 a month to 1750, over 2 years, because the demand for rentals went down (because of the high number people buying condos, making the market for rentals less competative and the slight economic downturn in 2001-3). the only other us city with strong rent control programs is san fran, which is the 2nd most expensive rental city in the us (and also because of it's beauty and small size, granted). quite clearly real estate is the ultimate example of economics 101. supply/demand, embrace it, it embraces you.

Real estate is a much different animal.

No economics 101 there.

Rent would not go down, the poster from Boston stated it right there. Boston, if I recall, got rid of their version of rent stabilization.

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 links illustrate 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.

rent control/stabilazation blows. i say this with my mom in a 850 sf one-bedroom that she pays like $240 a month for on west end ave. she could totally afford more, but hey why would she? it's retarded. and if you can't afford $2500 for a one-bedroom, move out. i worked my ass off to get where i am now (i'm an artist, if i may use that term) and lived in 2-bedrooms with 4 roomies till i was 30. that's paying your dues. if all rents were subject to market forces the overall rate of rent would go down. that's economics 101. but fuck it, my mom is happy. to totally contradict myself, I'm way in favor of the 80/20 rule for tax breaks on new buildings, that makes sense and allows people of lower incomes to live in an area they might not normally be able to afford, but that's INCOME SENSITIVE (in all caps). But $240 a month rent for people with decent incomes and assets? only in new york.

"Unfortunately, Rent control along with a whole host of other land use policies in New York has severely limited the growth of supply of apartments in the city"

complete and utter HORSESHIT. there are thousands of empty apartments in new york, that have been empty for decades (example: the trump towers on the west side highway) because the cost of living there is too high, the owners would rather let the apartments stay empty and take a loss on their taxes. maybe instead of building overpriced and piss poor quality highrise condos, they shoulve built affordable housing for middle income renters. rent stabilization only affects apartments with rents below $2500, and it does allow for controlled increases, as opposed to the landlords doing whatever the hell they want, which is A GOOD THING for renters. it always amazes me when people complain about laws that are in their own interest such as these. rent stabilization doesnt drive up rents for non stabilized apartments, greed does. when i lived in boston, my landlord would raise my monthly rent by $100 a month every year, for nothing, no improvement to the building or services, and I had no alternatives, either pay up or move out. and thats bullshit.

The laws haven't applied to new construction since the 70's. It's done nothing to retard new construction since then. Most developers have opted to participate in tax-relief programs which require some level of below-market rents for 10 or 20 years.

>>>Come on, stablized/controlled people. you know who you are. Most of you can afford a lot more.

No.

www.forgotten-ny.com

"legally allowable rent" - isn't that just funny in and of itself? In fact, the thought of a RGB sitting around trying to dictate all Soviet style what someone can and can't charge for their apartment. FOr being so progressive, sometimes NYC is pretty backwards.

The reason that we even need any of these schemes is only because vacancy is rates are so low. In any regular housing market, there is about 5% vacancy, and that is the leverage that tenants have. Give me a bad apartment or raise my rent 'unfairly' and i'll move.

Unfortunately, Rent control along with a whole host of other land use policies in New York has severely limited the growth of supply of apartments in the city, which pushes vacancy down to point somethings. Why do you think that you have to pay some broker multiple thousands of dollars to RENT an apartment? That's unheard of almost anywhere else. Why are the same crappy apartments recycled year after year while the nice apartments never really are open or available to regular people?

Those are just the hidden costs people don't talk about when they think some enlightened cabal can play god and dictate prices, amongst other things..

I'm always surprised that rent stablized/controlled is ok, socially acceptable, even chic.... but living in the projects is not.

Yet the rent is the same. Come on, stablized/controlled people. you know who you are. Most of you can afford a lot more. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Half the city would empty out if rent stabilization were ended. $1500-$2000 rents for one bedroom apts would be the norm, even in Flushing. I can't afford that, and I don't want to double or triple up.

www.forgotten-ny.com

My rent-stablized apartment is renting for less than the legally-allowable rent, so it's not hurting anybody, but it is a nice safety net for long-term residents, as someone said. It's OK to advocate for market rents when you're just parachuting in for a few years and then will be on your way back to the suburbs. Oh, by the way - let's discontinue the tax deduction for mortgages - that just distorts the housing market, no?

From someone at a loss with this issue:

Rent control, it seems, is bad: Totally out of whack with reality. It doesn't apply to a lot of people though, right? Isn't it a relic of world war II or something?

Rent stabilization seems like a good idea, but who qualifies? is it written into the lease? my lease goes up by $75 a month next year (if i renew) which seems ok to me. is this rent stabilization?

duhh . . .

Oh no! They'll now have to pay $450 for their 5 room apartment in the heart of Manhattan?

That's totally not fair!

Rent control and stabilization is dumb because it creates an unnatural housing market. Landlords that have controlled or stabilized apartments are more or less forced to make up the $$ gap by charging more to non-controlled/stab apartments.

A better way to assist lower income people would be to give them housing vouchers, akin to food stamps, and let the landlords charge whatever they want. That way the market stays free and those that are truly in need get assistance. In addition, the "food stamps" model could be more easily regulated, ie. require that the tenant show their tax returns in order to get the vouchers.

for people who have lived in new york since before the 80's, rent stabilization is the only way that they are able to afford new york without living in a shelter.

there is nothing wrong with the people who are native new yorkers who have lived through the good and the bad in this city to expect a little safeguarding against asshole landlords who are trying to push them out with huge increases.

Why is rent stabilization dumb? It just is a safe guard against getting forced out of an apartment at the end of the lease. Otherwise he/she could raise it by any amount.

Stabilized rent is about 30% to 40% off the market rent (at least when I was living in one). Rent control is $300 for a 3 bdrm in a good Manhattan neighborhood.

Both are totally outdated policies that should be abolished, or at least have some type of income review to throw out tenants that don't deserve to live in one.

Tim, rent stabilization is very different than rent control. Approximately one-half of the apartments in New York City are rent stabilized.

Exactly. One is stupid and one is dumb.

Rent control is much much different from rent stabilized.

Rent control does not make any sense. Few lucky ones get extremely cheap housing and the rest of us must pay higher rents.

Why not market rents for everyone? I don't think socialism has ever worked.