Rent Guidelines Board Recommends New Hikes

One million? That's way too much. This is partly why market-rate apartments are so expensive.

said it before and I'll say it again:

Rent control hurts EVERYBODY except those in rent controlled apartments. The rest of us pay the extra market rent those people should be paying. I'm less than middle class, yet I'm paying to subsidize people making far more than me living with artificially cheap rent. Read some economics textbooks. Rent control has gotta go.

Amazing that Chicago gets along without rent control guidelines board (or any rent regulation at all) and nearly everyone in that city pays less for better apartments. How is that possible 10:10? Are the landlords there some other form of human? No. They're just as greedy as say, investors in mutual funds or government bonds here. What makes the landlords so scummy here ARE the regulations. It's a paradox, I know. But try to imagine the sort of person who would invest their money in New York rental real estate. There aren't many millionaire masochists around so you end up with a lot of meanies. The only decent ones are the corporate ones will to wait for the day when Manhattan rental property becomes someplace that resembles a real market. In the meantime any new arrivals are priced to the peripheral regions--which is great for gentrifying the outer boroughs. But it's the main reason why Manhattan has become a no-fun zone. Rental buildings house a dying breed of nostalgic rent-seekers and overworked finance types.

do you honestly think if they were charging other people more you'd pay less???

Probably. The people that can't afford market rate in Manhattan would leave - either to the other boroughs or retirement in other parts of the country. That would increase the supply of apartments and assuming the number of apartment seekers stayed the same than it is logical to conclude that rents would fall or at least increase at a lower rate.

Millions of people reach retirement age and go elsewhere where they expenses are lower and they can more realistically match their income to their expenses. But in New York we say everyone can stay in their home until they die.

[me] said:

"it's not like you're selling sneakers and you can say to your customers "if you don't want to buy my sneakers at this price, don't"."

Actually, it's EXACTLY like that. You either own something and can do with it as you please, or you don't. If rent becomes too high, it's time to move on.

To follow your argument to it's possible conlusion: What happens when a landlord's costs exceed the rent roll? Are they still somehow bound to provide housing to people who can't afford to buy their own? You can't be serious.

Why would anyone own a building if they had no control over what's done with it.

I know three people who own small apartment buildings in this city and their lives are literally a living hell. Constant complaints, court dates, thefts, bureaucratic screw-ups, non-payment of rent, heating and systems problems. They don't make anything, believe me.

This is not to say that many don't make money, but they endure a high risk and alot of work to do so.

Socialist posturing by those like yourself and the pro-tenant lobbies make it that much harder.

haha...It's the neverending argument about rent control/stabilization! Oh and look, the same points always are brought up and nothing ever gets resolved! HOh, and wait, someone throws out the "S" word after reading about 'greedy landlords' (i.e., capitalist whores)! Always predictable the conversation on both sides of this argument. sigh.

Rent stabilization prevents gouging. "just move" is not reasonable. I don't know about you, but I don't relish the thought of packing and moving all I posses on a yearly basis; landlords know this and use this as leverage.

LOL, don't forget unionized building staff, which when I get the statement for my building is the majority of the maintanence cost.

Rent stabilization prevents gouging. "just move" is not reasonable. I don't know about you, but I don't relish the thought of packing and moving all I posses on a yearly basis; landlords know this and use this as leverage.

If everyone is subject to the same market forces it is pretty hard to "gouge". Gouging is charging far more than the market price because you have a captive market, like raising gasoline or food prices after a hurricane. You could argue that if you are already in the apartment it is gouging if the landlord thinks you will pay anything to keep from moving. But you have options. One is to move, the other is to make a counter offer.

Have any of you ever tried negotiating with a landlord? It's not that hard. Most landlords will take a good tenant over a few extra bucks and a lousy tenant and/or the hassle of finding a new tenant. Advertising, credit checks, etc. cost the landlord money even if it is a tax deductible cost. And no landlord wants a lunatic that might stop paying altogether. Eviction is a nightmare process. So if a landlord tries to raise your rent 6% and you come back with a 3% or 4% offer s/he will probably take it. Look at other apartments in your neighborhood for an idea of what the market rate is. I did this twice with my last landlord and he caved each time.

Anyway, a 6% increase on an apartment that is stabilized and far below market is hardly gouging.

you've chosen to be in a business that's a basic human necessity – namely, shelter

So landlords should be martyrs for social justice? I guess this is going to be true of medicine eventually. No more huge salaries for doctors. Nationalize the insurance companies. Cap drug prices (and watch all research go to India and China).

Market rate renters in NYC have entered a very strange new world. Our city has had some form of rent regulation since the 1920s, and in the 1940s, our city government and business leaders realized that some form of public/private partnership was necessary to keep our city's housing stock affordable, and to keep this city running. That partnership has only very recrently broken down.

A some point, CEOs will realize that while they may be able to afford to rent an apartment in NYC, that may not be the case for the people who work for them. A some point, small businesses will realize that for every 1% rise in rents across this city, about a $billion flows out of the local economy. Which is, I guess ok if we want to cede the entire city to Wall streeters and the real estate industry, but that may perhaps not be in the best long term interests of NYC.

A note on supply/demand: it does not really apply in a city like ours, where so few corporate interests own so much of the housing stock. And for those who think that should NY rent regulations end tomorrow, the result would be city rental costs levelling out: just take a look at what has happen to Boston post-deregulation. Prices didn't level out, they have skyrocketed.

21, market rents went up in Boston as they have everywhere in the country due to inflation that the fed created by running the presses, but if you want to taking your selection as an argument, the rents in Boston went up far less than they have in NYC which has regulations, so your statement does not make any sense.

Zeng,

What facts are troubling you?

NY has had rent regulation in various forms, since the 1920s. At the beginning of the 20th century, rising rents and evictions led to rent strikes and mass protests so NYC first established rent controls in 1920. Our current system, born in 1974 is directly descended from the broad rent and price controls that were put in place at the end of World War II because of a severe housing shortage.

(Note: Regulations were suspended by Nelson Rockefeller and a GOP dominated legislature from 1971-1974. Evictions and harassment became so widespread that the GOP themselves passed the 1974 Emergency Tenant Protection Act.)

Increased rents may be a boon to landlords and to NYC property tax collectors. But every extra buck that goes to a landlord is a buck that a renter won't spend in the local economy or put in a savings account. How many new businesses stay outta NYC because our high rents mean paying higher wages?

NYC apartments are largely owned by big real estate, (not mom and pop landlords like the RSA would like us to believe) according to study submitted by the NY State Tenant and Neighborhood Coalition to the RGB in 1987, "The small 12
percent of landlords who own 71 percent of the stabilized
apartments own on the average 238 apartments each."

market rents went up in Boston as they have everywhere in the country due to inflation that the fed created by running the presses, but if you want to taking your selection as an argument, the rents in Boston went up far less than they have in NYC which has regulations, so your statement does not make any sense.

Baloney. My cousin lives in Boston and moved out of her downtown apartment after deregulation and bought a house in Charlestown. She says the rental situation there is VERY ugly now, and that her old apartment now rents for triple what she couldn't afford back then (She's a VP for a publishing firm). Tripled Boston rents in less than 10 years has as little to do with inflation as 30% yearly rent increases for market raters in Stuy Town.

JohnS, you're full of sh$#. I just moved here from Boston less than 4 months ago, it went up nowhere near the extent it did here... market rate to market rate - maybe your friend had a mansion they were paying 90 bucks a month for prior to deregulation. The time has come to get rid of this outdated policy.
and ps... to your other post, we are no longer living in post ww2 USA, there are plenty of places you can move to if you cannot afford NY. there are affordable places allover the country. we do not need to support you simply because you feel you have some right and are too lazy to earn a wage that can pay then rent.