I live in a rent stabilized apt that I had to go to court and fight a landlord that wanted me out. Thanks to strong rent stabilized laws and a great real estate attorney I was allowed to stay. But the landlord got four other apartment renters to leave. For the last two year I have lived in an empty building, he has warehoused the apts and now he has decided to give three of the apts to religious students( the landlord is a "rabbi"? ) that run up and down the stairs, dance on floors that have no carpeting, smoke and leave garbage whereever. This I presume is a new way to get me out. But here is a landlord that pays no taxes to the city ever. His 501c3 companies are all bogus. I wonder how many buildings are owned by non profits that have tenants and get raises in rents each year but never pay one cent of taxes. Who ever checks to see if a non profit is a non profit.

Co-op City has more crooks than the lord will allow, a outside investagation needs to be done to check the books due to missmanagement of funds and neputisum.

I purchased a 1 BR apartment (condo) for $600,000 a few years ago and have a $450,000 mortgage. My monthly payments including common charges is about $3700 and the real estate tax is another $10,000 a year. I have been offered a job to work in Europe for 3 years. I don't want to sell the apt. because I will be returning to NY. But if I rent it out, the real estate broker said I can get $4000 a month. I calculated that even if I take into consideration of the tax break on the depreciation I can take on the apartment when I rent it out, I will not break even. So there are landlords who loses money.

MID-C FRANK

EHHH, WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT?

OWNERS WHO GOT GREAT DEALS (FORECLOSED PROPERTIES, LITTLE OLD LADIES, WHATEVER) DID SO BECAUSE THEY GOT LUCKY OR DID THEIR HOMEWORK. NOT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED THEM A GREAT DEAL.

SO YOU LIVE IN A RENT STABILIZED APT. GOOD FOR YOU! DO YOU THINK YOU ARE OWED THAT APT IN PERPETUITY BECAUSE YOU WERE ONCE A GOOD CITIZEN IN A BAD NEIGHBORHOOD?

HOW IS THAT FAIR TO ANYONE WHO DID THE SAME THING AND DIDN'T GET A STABILIZED APT?

YR A JOKE.

all stabilized, controlled, whatever you want to call them are subsidized. the difference is in one case your neighbors in your building subsidize you through higher rents or the second is the government does directly. either way, you're not paying your way. get over yourself, you don't deserve others to pay for you to be in Manhattan or anywhere for that matter. move where you can afford to live.

For the record, I have a great landlord. I don't envy what he has to keep up with, but I also believe my current rent ($1200) is fair for a one bedroom in my Brooklyn neighborhood.

I do resent the implication that those of us who don't own don't "work hard enough." Some of us have astronomical student loan debt, medical emergencies (especially the uninsured), or perhaps a bankruptcy in the past that would prevent a mortage approval in the near future.

I don't really have much of a choice but to rent right now, yet I work very long hours.

sheesh, when will the pro-market idiots get it straight? there is a difference between rent stablization/control and subsidized housing!! get over this idea that the government, rich or whoever the f*ck is paying for other people's rent controlled/stabilized housing. unless the housing is distinctly identified as subsidized (and, yes, such housing may also be rent stablized/controlled), not all rent stablized/controlled housing is subsidized.

ROBERTO, YOU THINK HOUSING SHOULDN'T NECCESARRILY BE LEFT TO THE FREE MARKET? IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FOOTING THE BILL FOR RENTSTABILIZED HOUSING, NOT THE OWNERS, WHO ARE TAXED AT EXACTLY THE SAME RATE AS MARKET RATE BLDG OWNERS.

RENTSTABILIZED APTS AREN'T MEANS-TESTED -- THERE IS JUST AS MUCH CHANCE OF WEALTHY TENANTS LOCKING UP A RENT STABILISED APT AS A LOWER INCOME "MORE WORTHY" TENANT.

THE SYSTEM IS HIGHLY FLAWED.

The flip side of this argument is that the supply of apartments is anything but fixed. If we want to have more apartments in Manhattan, then build larger buildings. It may not be the best thing for neighborhood "character", but the supply of apartments will go up, and the average cost for each apt. should go down. Some units may need to be reserved as rent-stabilized or set aside for lower income folks, but overall the total quantity of apartments will go up, giving more power to renters and raising the vacancy rate.

SP, get real man. first if they abolished these things, it wouldn't affect me at all since I'm not lucky enough to have one and as you said not many do (why should someone luck out over someone else). i agree with that other poster, let things sort themselves out without these damn regulations and laws. you're probably a nimby too i bet, yet want rents to go down.

loopie, when landlords are allowed to raise their rents as they see fit, it never has anything to do with their actual expenses. it's mind boggling to me that anyone who rents would be in favor of abolishing rent regulations that protect them from arbitrary rent increases. those who do are suckers just asking to be bent over. hey, since you're so eager to give your money away for nothing, send me some. i take paypal, it's real easy.

SP, so i guess if you owned a building and your costs went up so you weren't making what you did last year, you would not make up the difference by increasing the rents on your market apartments? you're a very kind soul indeed. can't wait to live in your building.

my landlord raised my rent by $300. the sad part is that even with the increase, it's still under market value! i have tons of light, an amazing view and 700 sq ft in a great building in the LES. still, i'd rather not throw away my $$$ on rent and am hoping to buy something...

Well said, Mid-C Frank, my thoughts exactly.

Please, give me names and stories of struggling landlords.

I'm serious. Anyone I know who has had one tiny to propery in the NY area to rent out has not just broken even, they've made a significant profit.

The mark up is ridiculous. But there are obviously people who have no problem paying it.

If they build it, young rich people will pay.

FYI: Rent CONTROL apts. are the rarity and could arguably be costing landlords money. Most STABILIZED rents are pretty high! The stability for the tennant is not "cheap rent" but a limited percentage of annual increase.

Landlords are making significant profits from most stabilized apts., absolutely.

soory, by "hundreds of thousands of non regulated apartments" i meant MILLIONS

The myth that rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments push up rents, is nothing but that: a MYTH. there are only about 250,000 rent regulated apartments in the city among hundreds of thousands of non regulated apartments. it's a drop in the bucket. if there were no rent regulations, the prices would be at the very least the same if not higher (higher is most likely). those of you who argue otherwise are either deluded, or dishonest with a vested interest in the abolition of regulation for your own profit.

Mid-C Frank, what do you pay in rent? what does the landlord pay in upkeep, realestate tax, fuel, staff, other costs? the people who subsidize you are the other tenants in your building. i'm sure they would all feel they had better ways to spend their money as someone else commented earlier.

roberto, if stability in housing is important to you or someone else, they should not be renting and relying on the kindness of someone else. if that means they have to move outside of Manhattan, whats the problem -- many do so. if you lived out on LI for example and couldn't afford your home, you would have to move to a more affordable place, why does that not compute in NYC?

Frank, what did you do towards building a safer community?

timbnyc, i never meant to imply they weren't making money on their place as a whole, maybe some are, maybe some are struggling, that part is irrelevant. what I am saying is if their costs go up anybody would make that up the only way they can, by increasing the rents on the market rate apartments if the market will bear it since they are limited on the controlled side... or i guess they could also look to find ways to opt out of the system if they can as we're seeing in mitchel-lamma cases. all i am saying is this current system is very broken and should never have been put in place to begin with... what we are seeing is the unintended consequences of laws that probably has good intentions.

the fallacy in simon's argument is that housing should be left to the free market. not everything should, for example basic necessities like housing.