Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
Access-A-Ride Renders Bike Lane Inaccessible
The UWS Gets Its Very Own Apple Store
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
People Wait For Tomorrow's UWS Apple Store Opening
Last night was the annual meeting of the Rent Guidelines Board to decide on rent increases for the city's rent stabilized apartments. Amidst the usual chaos (the crowd yelled "Blah, blah blah!", "Free rent!", "Shame on you" and "Liar" while board members spoke), the board approved moderate hikes: 3% for 1-year leases, 5.75% for 2-year leases.
These hike were less than last year's 4.25% and 7.25% increases, falling into a "middle range," given that tenants wanted no hikes (that proposal failed) and that landlords wanted to raise rents by 5% and 9% (that failed too). Of course, the increases were unsatisfactory to tenants and landlords alike; Rent Guidelines Board chair Marvin Markus "admitted the process was flawed because it doesn't help the poorest tenants or the most cash-strapped landlords."
The NY Times breaks out some of the costs to landlords (one of whom complains that city tax breaks aren't helping him) while the Post mentioned City Comptroller William Thompson's and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn's desire for low increases - Thompson and Quinn are looking at runs for mayor in 2009.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
love that image above
yes 50% of income is too much rent, but i wonder how often these people think about trying to increase the other side of the equation (income) instead of demanding artificialy low rent
#1, there is an income threshold for rent stabilized apartments--$175,000 combined income for all tenants of the same unit.
I live in a rent stabilized apartment in midtown--we pay just shy of $2k/month for a crappy 1 bedroom in a non-doorman building, but it is convenient to both work and school.
The rent increases this decade (over 2000-2006) averaged 3.57%.
So 3% is a little lower than what I was expecting. (There's no way 0% was going to happen.) Pretty good news.
These parasites can move to Jersey like I did. Not only is my rent cheaper, I don't pay the city income tax.
Lower rents. Find the Foote.
Egan, out.
http://eganfoote.wordpress.com
#2 i doubt the "noicemakers" make anywhere near 175K
they want to stay at their current income level and have rents stay artificially affordable, thereby having no incentive to earn more.
why is it a "given" that they can only make a certain salary...and the landlords (tricking down to NYC taxpayers) have to subsidize them
The rent stabilization system is broken. It needs major overhaul.
I got to admit I am one of those taking slight advantage of the RS system. I pay just over $600 a month for a large one bedroom apartment in Queens that I use on some of the weekends I come back to NYC. I recently moved to CT and bought a huge 2000 square foot condo apartment for just under $350,000 that is new construction.
I don't make $175,000 but I make around $80,000 which is nothing in NYC but is pretty good in the Hartford area of CT.
Do I feel guilty?? Hell no. The apartment I am still paying for in Flushing is in a badly maintanied building with 'lower class' type of tenants and is noisy & dirty. But it is a good place to crash on the weekend since I am just a 2 hour drive away or 3.5 hours in Friday traffic.
Too bad for all these 'hipsters' paying market rate of $2,000 + in some crap hole apartment in Brooklyn. I bet many of them are making piddly salaries of $50,000 or so and need roomates or mommy to help them.
Regarding comment #6 -
Are you serious? Do you think that the people who will be most negatively affected by this don't want to be earning more money?
How easy do you think it is for these people to advance their careers? Are they supposed to walk into their bosses' offices and demand a raise because their rent increased? You think their bosses/companies would care? And how to do they go about being more qualified to get these higher paying jobs? Pay for school while juggling their day job that doesn't pay them enough to live in their apartments?
I may be running the risk of sounding elitist here, but the people who need government housing assistance aren't the best educated people. They can't just walk into an admissions office for NYU, Fordham, Columbia, etc and gain admittance. They'd have to go to schools that pretty much take anybody willing to learn and pay tuition. Even if they do go through with it and graduate, how much better is the job (if they can get one) going to be with a mediocre degree?
If their rents were increased as much as it seems you're suggesting, it's not going to magically create new jobs for these people so they could afford it. All it's going to do is to create a massive increase in homeless New Yorkers. And then you'd be complaining about how they are costing taxpayers money yet again.
Last year's increase was a killer for many tenants.
This year was much more reasonable.
so #9
you're saying that these people will always be poor and uneducated, and we should just shut up and subsidize their existence
which is a perfectly fine viewpoint...but then the landlords should not be slapped with "market rate" expenses for insurance, utilities, taxes....everything should be subsidized top to bottom...sooner or later the math simply doesnt make sense ...the owner will either walk away or more likely sell to a developer who can just knock it down and build condos
#11,
Yes and no. To be frank, the people who would be affected by dramatic increases in rent (not saying that this 3% is killer because it's not) at the present, I think, will be in this situation until they die. But the city (and maybe every city) needs to make a choice for the future.
a) Keep housing affordable and maintain status quo where no one seems happy
b) Keep housing affordable for the time being. Continue to expand educational reforms in lower-income areas. Take harder stances on not compromising educational quality.
c) Forget about affordable housing and concentrate on the ensuing homelessness problem.
d) Invest more time and money on public transportation in the areas surrounding Manhattan. Make it more palatable for people to live further away in terms of distance without adding significant times to their daily commutes.
e) Blame hiphop culture and video games and call it a day.
None of these options seem very attractive. But me personally, I just hope that "c" will not be the prevailing choice.
i can't believe people living in an under market apartment complaining about a 3% increase in their rent!!!! When you actually own something, like a house or condo, and you get an increase in electric, or condo fees, or TAXES!! nobody gets to file a grievance with ConEd, or negotiate some sort of regulated increase ... it's TS!!! 3%???? Ungrateful m-fers.
#6, I am one of those noisemakers that lives in a rent stabilized apartment and my spouse and I make pretty close to $175k.
I just posted in response to #6 that my spouse and I are those noisemakers and we make pretty close to $175k. I forgot to mention that I'm poster #2.
re: "yes 50% of income is too much rent, but i wonder how often these people think about trying to increase the other side of the equation (income) instead of demanding artificialy low rent"
that's hilarious.
ok. not all of us work in the financial industry, or are doctors or lawyers. some of us are in a white collar job that doesn't pay six figures. sometimes, there's just a salary cap on what you do. the answer isn't "make more money" or "quit your job" or "get out." it's just not that simple. you dedicate your life to something and maybe your industry is based here so you have to stay here, but your industry isn't keeping pace with the rents.
your logic implies that all people who can't afford rent are uneducated poverty stricken losers, when in reality, there are tons of people who are just out of college making 35k a year as an assistant somewhere, living with 10 people so they can afford it; the average ny'er salary is around 48K; the average rent for a one bedroom is 2500, which comes to around 30K a year. the math doesn't add up. this isn't about keeping the rent 'artificially low,' this is about keeping the rents at a normal price so that the average human can live here, not just people who make more than six figures. even in L.A., the ave one bedroom is around 1200 and you get much much more for your money. in anywhere but ny and sf and la, i would be that finding an aprtment for less than 1000 would be cake. and you wouldn't have to pay some unskilled asshole broker thousands of dollars for the 'right' to live in it.
In the four years since I've lived in my apt my rent stabilized apt has gone up from 1350 to 1500; my income has not increased to match the price of my rent and i now pay over half my take home to rent. it's bullshit. if i was to move, i would not only have to fork over thousands of dollars for all the first, last, deposit, broker, movers ect, i would have to live 40 minutes out on the train, most likely in a non-rs situation. as it is i live on ghetto block 15 minutes from the nearest train. yeah new york!
17, cry me a river... everyone else who didnt luck out (99% NYers) have to move where they can afford, so I dont think anyone feels bad for you.
#16, I agree wholeheartedly. Well said.
Yeah, damn those stupid cops, public school teachers, and fire fighters for not getting jobs that pay more so they can pay their rent! Seriously! They should go move somewhere else they can afford!
i'd love to find out how many "cops, public school teachers, and fire fighters" live in R/S apts...probably not so many...mostly a bunch of underachievers
No one HAS TO LIVE in NYC. There are many places not in the NYC metro area where you can live well on less than $100,000 a year and don't have to spend $2,000 or more for a closet sized apartment.
I think more & more people are realizing this at least the middle class. It seems like the entire city is mostly wealthy transplants from the midwest & the west coast now who are somehow able to spend $5,000 - $10,000 a month on housing costs plus pay the confiscatory 15% brokers fee (not mentioned at all).
And BTW, $35,000 or even $48,000 a year is nothing after 4 years of college. You can make that driving a city bus or working as a cleaner for the MTA.
Why do you think rents have risen so much since 2001?? Something called supply & demand. The overall vacancy rate across the 5 boros is the lowest on record even though construction & permits are at a 30 year high.
For those who say RS is such a bad thing. You will get what you wish for since slowly RS is being phased out & more and more apartments are being decontrolled every year. At the current rate there will complete decontrol under the existing rules in the next 10 years.
{{{i'd love to find out how many "cops, public school teachers, and fire fighters" live in R/S apts...probably not so many...mostly a bunch of underachievers}}}
You are right about that. They are all living in huge houses in Nassau county or in the Guido Nabes of Glendale, Bensonhurst or Staten Island.
And with overtime, the average cop or FF with at least 5 years under their belt makes close to if not over $100,000 with overtime not to mention all the benefits.
I lived in a RS apt for 2 years while making more than the household income cut offcome of 175K (I needed to pay off debt from ivy league grad school). Bet there are lots more like me out there now.
If a means test was effectively implemented, I think a good number of apartments would be released from the program and the landlords would be more willing/able to minimize the increase for those more deserving.
just move to where you can afford. the whole rent system in nyc is fucked up. if they let the market do its work. there would be alot less problems.
# 16
"this is about keeping the rents at a normal price so that the average human can live here"
What kind of entitlement issues make you think that you deserve to live in Manhattan if you can't afford it? To be honest, Manhattan doesn't need economic diversity. As far as I'm concerned, the guy who makes my salad can take the subway to work from the outer boroughs.
also # 9
I earn nice money but I sure work more than 40 hours per week at my salaried job. If people with hourly jobs want to make more money, maybe they should get more than one job or move somewhere less expensive.
#8
You're a piece of crap. You're taking up space in an apartment when you have another home. Some single mom and her kids might appreciate living there even if you think it's junky. Karma is an interesting thing.
#26 you're the entitled rich asshole.
here's the thing: New york city is/was considered an interesting place and desirable place because of the artists and writers and great minds who lived here. mark twain, ginsberg, ramones, lou reed, basquiat, warhol, ect. many of these people weren't all seeing a profit from their art at the height of their popularity but they were able to be here to create because the city was affordable to all types of people. these are the people that made New York seem cool, attracting out of towners with big dreams to come here and live.
you're right, no one HAS to live in nyc--but if you want to you should be able to find a way to do it, short of fucking prostitution and selling your soul.
I didn't move to New York to live in New Jersey, you know what I mean? It was bad when I moved here, but it's gotten far, far worse since then.
#27 - those creative types are moving elsewhere. They have been priced out because others such as #8 hoard the RS places which leaves hundreds of thousands of apts out of circulation thereby preventing the ppl that RS is meant to help from renting these places.
However, all is not lost. You can move to wherever those artists are moving to. Minnesota, Philly perhaps? Seriously - I hear there are thriving art scenes there created by those nyc transplants priced out of nyc.
Why stay in ny if the very thing you came for is dead or dying? Ppl here and on curbed lament the fact that ny is turning into a gated community for the rich etc. and it is true that in the last 6-7 years, the amount of money needed to enjoy yourself here has risen exponentially.
#22, your last paragraph is absolute bollocks!
There are one million RS apts in nyc and about 40,000 RC apts.
Between 2002 and 2005 there was a net gain of 1280 RS units due to the replacement of luxury decontrolled units being replaced and a loss of 16000 RC units in the same time period:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/pr/vacancy.shtml
The number of RC apts can only go down but more RS can be built. Thus you could in theory be correct in saying that in 10 years you could lose all 43,000 remaining RC apts but losing over a million RS apts over 10 years? When there has been a net gain in recent years? You are seriously confused or just plucking numbers out of your arse.
A few other points. RS applies to all five boroughs and isn't just about Manhattan as many commentators suggest. It's also not about lazy people or stupid/uneducated people not earning enough--has that commentator ever read about the wage erosion occurring in the US? Many professionals with advanced degrees do not earn much more than $70K in mid-career (university professors, city lawyers (working for govt.), social workers, etc.) and it's not because they are lazy, working less than 40 hrs a week, starting out, etc. Very few jobs pay in the six figures. On an unrelated point, admin assistants are not a benchmark, as someone suggested--many non-corporate jobs require a lot of education and pay a lot less.
It takes all types to make a city and even if every educated person decided to leave a less well paid profession, they couldn't--there aren't the jobs and changing careers is not that easy. I'm not sure I like regulating rents but given the absolute greed in this city and the destruction of its heritage to get a quick buck, it's better than some of the alternatives. It's also easier to implement and enforce than increasing wages.
And while I think the rich who hoard rent controlled apts are scum (and likely evading the income limits), many of these apts are at market rent, and aren't the largely mythical RC luxury units renting for peanuts.
I also have limited sympathy for landlords--they chose to do this to make money and they have--their properties have escalated in value. They also get the rebates on property taxes paid to them by their tenants.
Whoops-I meant that the tenants pay property taxes as part of their rent and the landlord gets the rebate.
Boy howdy... there are some commenters here who are brand new to the city and/or willfully ignorant and/or (common mistake) confusing rent control with rent stabilization. Read comments #29 & #30 carefully before you talk about freeloaders and parasites.
I was #3, one of the few neutral comments on this page. I am basically happy with the increase this year but I'm still wavering on whether to stay in my place another year. My apt is close to market rate because I moved in this year and, like many apts in my neighborhood, it was gut renovated between the last tenant and me (that's the only way landlords can raise rent substantially between tenants, in a stabilized building -- the allowed increase is a % of the renovation cost, so sometimes landlords and contractors are in cahoots, reporting higher renovation costs than actually were spent).
My neighborhood is full of stabilized apts that are not a great deal especially given the neighborhood and the very low-quality "gut renovations" they've gotten. Quite a few stabilized apts in this city are not an unusally good value -- especially in areas like mine where there is now a strong trend to renovate & raise rents as much as possible between tenants.