Gothamist: Costs Are Climbing for Landlords

vross2000

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:05:44 -0500

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.

Richard I. lawson, Jr

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:11:21 -0500

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.

potential landlord

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:18:02 -0500

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.

AM

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:14:09 -0500

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.

blah

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:12:11 -0500

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.

.

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:50:17 -0500

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.

Mid-C Frank

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:29:01 -0500

I wanna hear some of these free marketers carry on about the great deal they got on a foreclosed property, or a little old lady who didn;t knwo the value of her real estate, etc etc -- where is the fairness in that kind of behavior??? I don't get the energy and bitterness you guys have about rent stabilization -- some of you got great deals and/or got into real estate early on -- good for you. I don't begrudge your good fortune -- why are you so angry about ours???

not an idiot

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:12:50 -0500

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.

am

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:01:45 -0500

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.

Construction worker

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:09:38 -0500

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.

loopie

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:52:00 -0500

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.

SP

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:41:28 -0500

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.

Mid-C Frank

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:08:52 -0500

First, pioneered in a neighborhood that would have scared most of you off. Our building tenant's group met with local police to help push out crack gangs, called cops on dealers many many times. We planted flowers aroudn the trees to helkp the block "look/feel" safer, and requested that empty tree wells get new trees (the city does it for free, but someone has to call). Worked with the city to get the landlord to provide better basic services (heat et al). Before you start calling people freeloaders or "subsidized", you might want to consider that they've invested more in their communities than quick cash.

loopie

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:01:49 -0500

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.

eb

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:01:47 -0500

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...

La Leone

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:59:28 -0500

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.

SP

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:59:18 -0500

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

SP

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:54:34 -0500

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.

simon

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:49:45 -0500

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?

nicemarmot

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:49:17 -0500

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

simon

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:43:25 -0500

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.

Mid-C Frank

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:36:19 -0500

Where does the "subsidize" nonsense come from? Unless you are in public housign ( a whole difference category, and not included with Rent Controlled/Rent Stabilized) -- there are no subsidies. My landlord makes a profit on my rent-stabilized unit -- and he makes a bigger profit on the market rate units. Am I (are we) supposed to feel guilty because I (we) got here long ago, put up with a lot of crap and helped build a safer community for you to live in? If landlords needed to make more money, they would sell off the building by cooping or going condo -- but with mark-ups of about 300% why should they? (...and in what other business would that kind of profit margin be tolerated?) Landlords in NYC have become totally consumed by greed -- that's your market gods for ya!

roberto

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:33:30 -0500

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.

me

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:30:34 -0500

Another false assumption is that all RC/RS tenants are poor or working class. There are many instances of fraud and ridiculous loopholes in these idiotic laws. Healthy seniors using Manhattan apts as a pied-a-terre, faking income, passing off apts to family/friends, illegal sublets. its a disguisting system loved only by leeches and those who aspire to be leeches. I take great pride in the fact that I own my residence in addition to a few properties that I rent out at market rates. Tenants are happy, landlord is happy, and we pay our own way.

timbnyc

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:23:03 -0500

That's my point, simon - if they sell it, it means there's a willing buyer who thinks he or she can make money despite the regs. There aren't that many abandoned buildings relatively speaking (and certainly a lot less than, say, Philadelphia), so apparently there are a lot of people who feel they can make money with rent control/stabilization in place. The market has spoken, and says it works.

eugene

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:19:07 -0500

To timbnyc on #14. I think you can find the statistics for rent controlled apartment. It is somewhere in the city government website. I think the whole city still have more than 40% of units of apartments are under either rent-stabilized or rent-controlled regulation . And that really big enough to distort the market.

simon

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:57:41 -0500

23, what im advocating is for things to work here like they do everywhere else. i work hard to stay here because i feel it is important to me. if i didn't, i would not feel the rent i pay was worth it and go elsewhere. to be able to afford it i had to change jobs a few times and work my way up to the point where i no longer had to share an apartment with 3 other people. a lot of people want to live on this little sliver of land, hence the high price. i am by no means rich (if i had enough for a down payment on something i would have bought sometime back). if a landlord can charge a lot of rent for owning a valuable commodity (an apartment) then he should do so. if someone cannot afford it, they need to look elsewhere rather than be subsidized to live there. this would begin to take the pressure off because the landlord can only charge what some other individual is willing to pay. less competition for a place, lower prices or a unit would sit on the market at the owners expense. all i'm saying is why does the market seem to work allover the place, except for NYC. The protests are by people with the subsidized places, because they don't want to lose the privileges they were lucky enough to get out and this is out of their own selfish motivations, just like the landlord wants to maximize how much he can charge for the same reason. the system is kind of a perverse market where very few benefit and many pay the price for it. just my opinion.

nicemarmot

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:52:32 -0500

Simon, it's not a victim mentality on Gothamist but in this city in general. "I've lived here for years, you can't kick me out or charge me more." "My landlord is evil and will charge me $1000000000 a month if you remove rent stabilization!" "Move to Brooklyn? But POOR PEOPLE live there!" Where the "I've lived here for years, therefore I deserve to be subsidized to live here forever" argument comes from I do not know. To be fair, rents are completely ridiculous right now, but that doesn't justify the current system. My rent: Gramercy, came in at $2600, last year raised to $2900, this year they want $3400. We are moving! That's just the way it goes.

roberto

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:44:05 -0500

nobody has a victim mentality simon, we're just not greedy like you. housing is out of control in manhattan and the rest of new york, and the problem is that salaries haven't raised to keep pace with housing and other living costs. should manhattan become an island for the rich, insulated from the rest of the population? that seems to be what you're advocating.

simon

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:28:34 -0500

by bail out, do you mean setting fires to the buildings like they did in the 70s? If the building cannot make money, they cant sell it. If they can make money by charging what the market will bear for a unit, you can bet they will. its a little depressing that some people feel entitled to a hand out. if you rent for crying out loud, you have no real rights to the property (i rent as well, btw). if you dont like it, nothing stops you from working hard as well and buying a place of your own to get out of these 'terrible increases' except YOU. i wish i was able to do it it now, and hopefully someday I will. there is also no reason people should be subsidized to live in manhattan which is among the most expensive little islands in the world at huge expense to everyone else. what is with the victim mentality on gothamist?

Ivan

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:28:24 -0500

Our LL in Park Slope wanted to raise our rent by 25% last November. His reason was that he had received a better offer from a relocation company. We ended up buying a place in Yonkers. We miss Brooklyn very much; we don't miss the ridiculous housing market.

D

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:22:33 -0500

Hey # 21, "double flipping," Wow, the high standard you have set for the level of discourse here in the comments is astonishing. What remarkable insight.

.

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:22:20 -0500

I've heard arguments for and against removing rent stabilization. The thing is, who among us really wants/needs the stress of acting as a guinea pig on the off chance all rents went up exponentially?

simon

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:21:35 -0500

its almost not worth having a discussion/debate on gothamist when the general IQ of some of the posters is really questionable... right, double flipping?

simon says

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:17:28 -0500

hey simon, maybe those idiot owners made a BAD investment and should bail out instead of passing off the costs to others?

problem

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:16:13 -0500

in my view the problem is that housing is unlike a regular commodity where lower prices would actually increase profits. in this case it appears to be the opposite. hence, the need for rent control/stabilization/whatever. it seems to me that because housing is a basic need, landlords think and, unfortunately, are right that many folks will pay higher rents (especially if it is not the so-called "undesirables" who are getting forced out). housing is in far shorter supply than, say, i-pods, so there is a limit to how much can be marketed. to make up for that, landlords decide to jack up the prices and use taxes, maintenance costs, etc. as lame excuses.

double flipping

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:15:23 -0500

simon is a fag. only fags are named simon. c'mon, it's pretty simple. No LL is losing money, show me.

halik

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:10:04 -0500

Well the fact that all you people live in Manhattan is a testament that you actually can afford it and are willing to pay. If you the rent actually reaches a point where people can't afford it, you'll see people leaving Manhattan for more affordable housing - ultimately supply and demand dictates the viable rent prices. Also removing rent control won't really make that much difference all in all, you'll see some slight decrease in all in all prices (demand is not 100% inelastic after all) but net effect is minimal. It will be more "fair" to all, however.

annmarie

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:02:58 -0500

just a personal cautionary anecdote about finding a new tenant if you want to leave a lease early: i tried to do that in bed-stuy about 2 years ago and my landlord was livid. he was ready to force us out within a week.

Emily

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:50:42 -0500

My landlord tried to increase my rent 20% for this coming year-$400! Luckily, I was able to negotiate down and we're staying, at least for another year. I doubt we'll be able to afford it after that.

simon

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:20 -0500

14, think of it this way.. you own a building, you were making x amount of money on it... great. now your costs went up double digits every year over the last few years and local law states that the large percentage of the apartments you own can only go up a fixes amount because they are controlled or stabilized. you do the math, now you've taken a hit financially... what do you do? you're telling me you don't send huge increases to the market units if someone is willing to pay it? come on, its pretty simple.

Rainman

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:38:16 -0500

Morningside Heights 1BR. First lease renewal they tried to get 15% and I talked them down to 8% after researching comparable rents in the area on craigslist. Second renewal - bang! 15% again, this time no budging. I've spent the last 5 months getting ready to buy and am now in contract waiting for my co-op interview. We should have rec'd a lease renewal from the LL a month ago and I'm planning on just not renewing and letting them figure out that the apt is vacant one day. Buy your apartments, people. It's the only way out of this disaster of a rental market. The rents are so high, you might as well!

jc

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:38:07 -0500

Besides craigslist, what other sites/services (free!) are around to look for apartments and/or roommates? I'm on a tighter budget and finding a good situation has been tough.

timbnyc

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:37:21 -0500

I think you're mistaken, Simon. It might be true if rent-control were imposed on only some apts. right now, but rent control and stabilzation have been in effect for a long time - the laws were takin into account by anyone who has purchased a building since the 1940's and obviously they figured they could still make money (perhaps even just in the long run, due to the rising value of real estate, with the idea of eventually emptying the building). As you said, it's a money-making venture - they didn't buy the property unless they knew they could make money. You're argument would work only if there's been no turnover since the laws were enacted and, even then, only if the lack of turnover was due to there being no buyers. In which case, people would just abandon properties. I don't think there's been a lot of that in the last 30 years at least.

dee

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:35:40 -0500

I don't like the fact that not only does so much of my paycheck go to the additional city taxes to subsidize people and services over what I already pay in state and federal (and I guess realeastate taxes too via my rent), but my rent does also directly subsidized people within my own building who I know pay less than 40% of what I do. I can barely afford to live here now; it almost pays not to work hard and milk the system the way its setup now.

me

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:32:56 -0500

thank you simon for an intelligent post very rare on gothamist

simon

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:26:28 -0500

you people obviously have no clue... the landlord bought the building as an investment to make money, not as a charity. he/she wants a certain return on their investment or at least cover costs... the costs are more of less fixed, real estate taxes (going up like crazy), fuel (going up like crazy), insurance (up as well), water service (goiing to be hike by double digits), physical maintenance, staff (whom a lot are union and have going up in cost significantly as well.) whiles it may be true that an owner will hike an apartment to what the market will bear if given the chance, it is most definitely true that he will increase charges on non stabilized units to cover the huge increase in carrying costs... so please get out of your fantasy land people, the rent controlled apartments do affect market units - this is whit out getting into the effect of locking apartments out of the market, etc. These laws have been removed from other cities without any ill affects whatsoever (most recently Boston)... I think we need to get rid of this quasi lottery system for housing and put everyone on an equal footing. Even amongst low income people, they are locked out of these apartments because people never leave them even if they can afford to, so basically your stuck with either luck or having been in a place for a long time... not a fair system.

dallas

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:06:26 -0500

I live in Hamilton Heights and our landlord tried to raise rent on a one-bedroom from $1530 to $1750 this past December. That's a 15% increase. Because he only owns the brownstone we live in, we were able to talk him down a bit but I'm sure by the time our lease is up, there's no way we'll be able to afford to live there.

timbnyc

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:01:07 -0500

"The existence of the rent-controlled apartments is part of what pushes rents of the other ones so high." You seem to be assuming putting the rent-controlled units onto the market would cause some equilibrium between supply and demand. Not true. Demand is just too high here. Besides, I'd bet that construction in the last several years equals or exceeds the number of units that are under rent control.

Samantha T

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:44:25 -0500

10:23 - you can always give the landlord a time limit and then tell him or her that you're getting a plumber on your own dime and take it off of the next month's rent with the receipt attached. There's really not a ton they can do beyond sue you which, believe me, they won't do under those circumstances. Rent withholding is really your only leverage as a tenant. Also, you don't want to have any damage from the leak that they'll sock you with when you move out! I, too, question the logic behind rent-controlled apartments driving up rents around the city. I think when landlords can toss somebody out of a rent-controlled apartment they simply raise the rent on that apartment and go on collecting high rents from their market-level apartments. Most (large) landlords are out for profit only. What's it to them to have several high-rent tenants?

u

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:40:44 -0500

My landlord claimed he had to raise our rent because of increased fuel costs. Perhaps he'd save money if he turned our heat off or at least adjusted it to the weather report.

Mark

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:23:23 -0500

Sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for landlords. If you live in Manhattan, they charge you an insane rent for a tiny space (and yes, I choose to live here, so I suck it up), but if anything goes wrong they rarely take responsibiltiy for it. Hostile neighbor who's so difficult that tenants leave the building in droves (this actually happened in my last apartment)? Too bad. I've been trying to get a leaky shower fixed for over a week, with no luck. Meanwhile, if my rent is more than a few days late, I get hit with an insane late fee. Landlords can suck it.

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:18:58 -0500

What makes you think that rents overall would go down if there were no rent-controlled apartments? Do you really think that a landlord will lower rents on apartments with high rent? It's more likely that landlords would just maintain the high rent on apartments with high rent and raise the rents in rent-controlled apartments to match those.

b

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:14:51 -0500

i've lived in a few cities and this is still a strange phenomenon - why does Manhattan (and i assume it's only manhattan) have such a hot market and these strange laws

Andrew

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:11:33 -0500

Interestingly, if there were no rent-controlled apartments, rents overall should go down because landlords wouldn't have to make up lost income by charging much more on non rent controlled places. The existence of the rent-controlled apartments is part of what pushes rents of the other ones so high. Of course if you got rid of the rent control, the people in those places would still pay more no matter what. So some of these protesters pretend to care about people in regular rent apartments, but they really don't. They just want to pay less for themselves while everyone is paying more because of them. There's nothing wrong with that though.

Mike

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:10:00 -0500

I lived on 11th and 1st 2 years ago, paying $1650 (preferential rent) for a 2 bedroom. Extell bought the building, and when it was time to resign the lease, it was for $2450. Needless to say I moved out, and now I'm in a rent stabilized studio on Avenue B.

Spoiled Brat

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:58:08 -0500

My rent is going up 15% ($300) next year. My landlord claims that's "a steal" considering how much his taxes have gone up this year, and claims that if I choose to move out he'll raise the rent by 30% at least.