There's a reason why you see luxury rentals going up for new construction over lower end. Why would you build anything else with the threat of rent regulation over your head? You wouldn't -- you'd stay high end at all costs.

The funny thing is most rent control benefits go to tenants in lower and mid-Manhattan, where the residents are relatively wealthy. Poorer people who for the most part live in the outer boroughs, receive little or nothing.

I agree with some of the other posters that the regulation just takes apartments off the market, because who in their right mind would leave a 3 bedroom upper east side apartment for 600 bucks? no none, so it remains locked up forever.

Joe are you kidding me?? Have you not walked anywhere in Manhattan lately? Every place I turn new buildings are going up with banners exclaiming "LUXURY CONDO/COOP." Unless you're a developer looking for some tax reduction ala Mitchell Lama which I don't see any most bldgs are going for the rich.

Massachusetts did it about right.

"After a 1994 referendum rent control was lifted immediately in the three cities, but a two-year extension was allowed for tenants qualifying for the federal definition of "lowincome"--less than 60 percent of the median for the region or 80 percent for the elderly and handicapped. In the end, 4 percent of the tenants in Boston and 10 percent in Cambridge and Brookline qualified for this extension. These groups were finally deregulated on January 1997."

NY should do the same. It protects the weak from a possible shock, but rids the system of the abuses, while giving everyone a fair shot at housing.

Communism is a failed experiment. Socialism, of one sort or another, is not an either/or system, is not incompatible with democracy, and has been around since before this nation was founded

Some issues are business issues, some social issues, some a hybrid and they must be approached based on their individual natures (which change, as circumstances do, over time).

Still, I respect your firmly held beliefs. I trust when the time comes you will return your Social Security checks.

erickartman'smom,

thats a joke. try getting a large scale development through the local boards without it.

Andrew J. Lederer,

you are wrong, give people more credit than living on the street, There are other alternatives. If people choose to leave Manhattan due to costs, which happen all the time, the high prices couldn't be sustained. Socialism is a failed experiment.

wrongo sara,

there's no law that REQUIRES you to have a percentage of your building set aside for mid and low income. (the 80/20 building and 421-a)

if you lived in NYC all your life, you should know better regarding rent laws. you probably signed a thing called a Lease.

em, landlords do not buy apartments to be charity cases. There is no such thing as a fair rent, only a rent someone is willing to pay... period. Just as landlord wants to maximize his investment, a tenant does not have to choose an overpriced apartment which will then stay on the market at the landlord's expense. Why is it so hard for people to understand. Subsidized housing helps so few people, there is no logical reason for it, only emotional ones - hence it still exists and we all pay for it. Sadly we are alone in this respect, as no other major city is saddled with this problem, even with high costs. Why do some people feel they deserve a handout? Why is it wrong for someone who invests in housing to expect to maximize their investment? ugh.

[34] Posted by: erica | June 6, 2006 08:20 PM

_____________________________________

Housing is not only a business issue, it's also a social issue, so straight business rules cannot apply.

It is not in society's interest to have people living in the street and some people do deserve a handout.

If you own a building in NYC you have seen over the last few years, real estate tax increases in the neighborhood of 50%, skyrocketing steam, gas and electricity costs from Con Ed, not to mention whatever else you buy to heat and/or cool your building.

I feel for rent poor people who are living on a fixed income or social security and support a regulation that keeps them from becoming homeless, but there has to be some consideration for a property owner. For anyone old enough to remember back not that long ago, when a landlord cannot meet his financials obligations, he abandons his property sooner or later. That is how Alphabet City became heaven on Manhattan for squatters in the early 80s.

[24] Posted by: ghitor | June 6, 2006 05:54 PM

______________________________________

Isn't happening now, though, is it?

When that becomes a problem, we can attend to it.

watwatwatwhat? first off i've lived here all my life, perhaps you should go back where you came from. --- lol what do you mean what regulations, every time someone wants to build a major development they are stuck making these compromises to build a certain percentage of "affordable housing". Guess who pays for that? The money doesn't drop from the sky, you and i do when you buy or rent the new unit. When someone has a rent controlled apt in your building, guess who pays for that - you do in your rent or maintenance charge. A building is run like a business and therefore the goal is to not lose money. only a few lucky people benefit from rent control. others wait on lists till they die and others just cough up the rent along with the hidden subsidy charge of increased rents, maintenance and taxes. If its true that the laws expire in 2011, good riddance.

[22] Posted by: sara | June 6, 2006 05:52 PM

____________________________________

A city without low and middle-income people or with the less-monied consigned only to outlying ghettos is no city at all. The demand that new buildings offer a percentage of apts as affordable housing will only increase as rent control and stabilization wane and this is as it should be. If it means rent for the rich who will make up the vast majority of residents in these ugly, oversized new structures is a little higher, that is also as it should be. They can afford it and they are helping to maintain the demographic diversity that makes the city great. In effect, they are getting what they pay for.

If you think I'm wrong and you are the sort of person who thinks the city should be a wealthy ghetto for the privileged, you should live elsewhere. You don't really like New York.

If you can't afford to live in Manhattan you are free to move out. That's what senior citizens (and everybody else) are doing all the time all over the country.

[21] Posted by: dee | June 6, 2006 05:47 PM

____________________________________________

Senior citizens are moving out of Manhattan all over the country?

l

I also know a guy who lives in a HUGE penthouse apartment in a midtown high-rise that his old lady mother happened to rent since the 1940s. His rent? $1000/month, rent controlled transferred since he was the next of kin. It's a couple thousand square feet, two bedrooms, has an upstairs bedroom and breathtaking views of Park Avenue at sunset.

There are just as many rent-controlled situations like this as there are poor old ladies who CAN'T afford a plasma TV.

[20] Posted by: i hate rent stabilization! | June 6, 2006 05:45 PM

____________________________________________________

First of all, envious one, market rating that apartment won't likely make it affordable for you.

Second, this kind of extraordinary deal is rare, whether you believe it or not.

What does this woman do for a living? No word in the article here re: whether she is low-income or otherwise actually deserving of low/subsidized rent.

[13] Posted by: me | June 6, 2006 05:20 PM

____________________________________________

She deserves it because it's the law. Don't buy a rent-controlled building if you don't wanna charge rent-controlled prices.

You wanna change the law, you deal with the appropriate legislatures -- you don't simply ignore it and hope nobody notices. (Unless you're GW Bush.)

What about these people who score rent controlled apartments and then post them on Craigslist for double the price? Can we send them to Riker's Island for a few weeks?

And if you don't think there's a housing emergency (at least in Manhattan) read this from today's Daily News:

Rentals scarcer than ever





BY PHYLLIS FURMAN

DAILY NEWS BUSINESS WRITER





Murray Hill's Rivergate



Want to rent an apartment in Manhattan? Fuhgettaboutit.

As if things weren't tough enough, Manhattan's vacancy rate dropped to a razor thin 0.43% in May, compared with 0.67% in April, according to figures released yesterday by brokerage firm Citi Habitats.

"The market is getting tighter by the minute," Citi Habitats COO Gary Malin told the Daily News. "People can't believe how high prices are, how fast apartments are moving, and how few apartments there are."

Rents continued their steady climb, with the median cost of a one-bedroom hitting $2,500 in May, up 4.4% from a year ago. A three bedroom will cost you a whopping $4,150 a month, a 7.8% jump.

Murray Hill's the neighborhood with the fewest flats available, with its vacancy rate narrowing to 0.21%. The East 34th Street zone has filled up with young singles priced out of hotter downtown neighborhoods.

Also nearly tapped out is Midtown West, where the vacancy rate was 0.27%. The neighborhood with the most rentals available in May was Chelsea, but even here, the vacancy rate was just 0.72%.

And don't expect apartments to open up anytime soon. As legions of young people enter the city this summer looking to set down roots, it will get even tougher to find a rental, Malin predicted.

The rental madness started last summer and the market has been squeezing tighter and tighter ever since.

That marks a big turnaround for the city's landlords who not too long ago were offering incentives like one month's free rent to lure customers.

Those kind of perks have vanished.

"It's a complete landlord's market," Malin said, noting that some landlords are asking for rent increases of 15% or more when a lease expires.

Driving up demand are would-be buyers who can't stomach the sky high prices of coops and condos. They're sitting on the sidelines waiting for prices to fall and they're renting in the meantime.

At the same time legions of renters are being thrown out on the pavement as numerous rental buildings, such as the Sheffield on W. 57th St., are being converted to condominiums.

"With the Sheffield, you now have 800 renters, all of a sudden, in the market," Malin said.

Manhattan's rental mania will continue to drive people to the boroughs, Malin said, but "the boroughs are tightening, too."

He noted new rental buildings, such as Rockrose's East Coast in Long Island, where the prices are "slightly under" Manhattan rents.

Originally published on June 7, 2006

The rent stabilization laws are UP FOR RENEWAL in 2011. It is misleading to write that they expire without mentioning this:

Rent Regulation: Rent Stabilization & Rent Control

Understanding New York's complex rent regulations can be difficult even for the most experienced lawyers and advocates. Both rent stabilization and rent control guarantee covered tenants the right to permanent tenancy with limited rent increases, and protect tenants from eviction except for good cause. But rent regulation is under attack - the real estate lobby is working diligently to erase it from the books and endanger the homes of over 2.3 million New Yorkers living in one million regulated apartments. Landlords won major weakening of rent and eviction protections in 1997 and 2003, and now landlords are claiming decontrol of vacant apartments by charging $2000/month rents in neighborhoods all over the city. The state rent laws are up for renewal in Albany in 2011.

Timetable The city's rent laws were renewed this year during March. Although only the state legislature has the power to strengthen the rent laws, the city's rent control and rent stabilization laws must be renewed by the Council once every three years. The city's housing department, as required, delivered to the City Council a report (the Housing & Vacancy Survey) showing the vacancy rate (the percentage of the total rent units that are vacant and available for rent). The 2005 rate is 3.09%, well below the 5% mark which the law defines as a housing emergency. A housing emergency is necessary for the continuation of the rent laws.

There is nothing wrong with limiting the amount a landlord can increase an existing tenants' rent. This prevents landlords from gouging you using the the pain and anguish of moving as the gouging tool.-This is rent stabilization.

Someone paying $300 a month for a 1 bedroom-This is rent control.

i disagree, destabilization is the only way to get the housing market back to some type of normalcy. The path will not be easy for some, but so very few are really helped as a percentage of those seeking or living in NYC by these arcane rules.

This is part of the reason why rent destablization is such a disaster. It made rent price controls seems like something that was intended to support only the poor. It was intended for every tenant, to stablize neighborhoods so people wouldn't be forced to move further and further from where they grew up every year.

Rent stablization rules mandate that landlords make a profit. They used to not be able to flip apartments or what have you. Nowadays, they can. Look at all the absentee landlords suddenly attentive because windfall profits are there to be had.

The problem with NYC rentals is that two markets exist; the socialist market and free market.

Where I come from (Ontario, Canada) rental controls also exist but they are consistent throughout the years and thus fair. You won't find dirt-cheap rentals. You'll find some high-priced rentals but they take longer to rent. Mostly, you'll find prices that are reasonable for both landlords and tenants.

It seems to me that the problem here is that Americans can't make up their minds between putting people first, or putting the almighty dollar first.

Before you call me a communist, know that I inherited 3 apartments buildings in NYC when family passed away. I used to believe that the landloards with rent controlled apartments made plenty of money, but it's not the casefor me. We are considering selling our properties as they are making very small profits because of rent-controlled units.

I guess my point is that these laws must be consistent. Setting up a social safety net is a great idea and can be great for the people but it takes a long term commitment.

The healthcare system in this country is caused by the same problem -- a patchwork quilt programs and a great deal of greed.