It's Time to Discuss Rent Hikes Again!

Some landlords have owned cheap, slum-like rent-stablized buildings for decades. They've always collected a certain amount of rent for many years.

Then, the neighborhood tripled in price. Landlords figured out a loophole in the stabilization laws that if they pay off a tenant, then renovate the apartment, they'll get a full return on their investment within approx four years. (Renovations after a vacancy can be passed on to rent-stabilized tenants at 1/40th the value per month).

The neighborhood tripled in value because of the presence of other entities the landlord had no part in creating, such as arts and culture. So many landlords, in almost a literal sense, got a hefty gift from the kids who decided to throw art parties in a bad neighborhood 15 years ago. Then as a thank you, the very same landlords price those kids out. How's that for economics.

People act like there aren't any affordable places in NYC and that living in a "cool" neighborhood is a basic human right. My landlord hiked my rent from $1200 to $1800 a few years ago for my two bedroom in Park Slope. Guess what I did - I MOVED - to Bay Ridge where I pay $750 and have plenty of space. I am thoroughly enjoying paying only a minor fraction of my income for rent, and will probably stay in the neighborhood when my lease is up.

Oil and gas have jumped dramatically the past year, and so have electric and water costs. Rent needs to go up to cover those increases. It ain't rocket science people.

The people who complain about rent increasing need to understand that their options are (i) suck it up, (ii) move to a cheaper area, or (iii)buy a place.

All this talk about the right to housing is really a demand for a government mandated subsidy to live cheaply at the expense of someone else. I use the word cheaply in a relative sense-- rents often are not cheap, but there are lots of costs in being a landlord- taxes, maintenance, the time value of money tied up in a building, that rent control advocates never consider. SO many other cities get along just fine without rent control, and NYC could also. It's really a stupid system.

As for the death of the creative class and the arts, the cycle will turn. High costs will drive working class and poor creative people away, they will settle in crappy cheap areas that will become safer and/or trendy, the economy will tank, vacancies will increase, crime will increase, people with money will flee, rents and property values go down, and we'll start over again.

If fools choose to keep living in NYC and keep paying ridiculous rents, then you get what you deserve.

If we all said HELL NO this wouldn't be happening. It's 101 people, supply & demand still go hand in hand.

But no, there are too many Carrie Bradshaw wannabe's out there who insist on paying these fees and buying Manolos while going into debt. Wait til the movie comes out and the next wave of CB wannabe's come in droves looking for an exciting city life. Let's see how exciting it'll be when you can't afford a Happy Meal for dinner because it's all going to your rent...

I think this is why I and a lot of my friends have left town recently. It's just not a place for people whose incomes aren't at least six-figures. The sooner people have the wisdom to realize that the better.

This does mean the death of New York as a center for the "creative class" and the arts. I'm not saying we should subsidize anyone or control rents but there is a clear cause and effect here.

Since when do people have a right to live wherever they want for whatever they can afford?

thankfully Pb is still cheap in America.

"When a neighborhood becomes popular and rents skyrocket, the people who have been living there all their lives should just pack up and move?"

Correct, if they can't afford to stay. It's been that way for generations. Former residents moved out of old nabes,usually saved up enough to buy a house in the suburbs. There's no inalienable right to live in one neighborhood for all your life. I always thought rent regulated is temporary so that people can save up a down payment to buy a place of their own?!

Think of all those worthless garbages clinging to their rent-stabilized apartments long after they amassed eight figures. Dump that commie law and scour out these parasites so everyone can have a place that works for them.

people seem to feel it is their right to live in the most expensive parcel of land in the country. everywhere else, people live where they can afford; whereas here everyone feels entitled to some subsidy. very sad. most of the country has no rent control laws at all and somehow life goes on.

That sign is nicely lettered.

"thankfully Pb is still cheap."

You've mentioned this a number of times in posts I've seen. Why are you so concerned about the price of lead? Peanut Butter?

Capitalism is a bitch.

NYC is a tough market. There's a shortage of housing and it's not going to get any better. There needs to be better regulation of the rent controlled/ stabilized laws. Rent stabilization was not always directed towards certain economic rungs, but has that perception now. And if that's the direction we're headed in, then there needs to a much closer analysis of the household salaries. If there is no parity, then the apartment needs to be rented to someone who needs it or be brought back up to market rate.

its all making sense now why my landlord is waiting to give us the lease renewal despite asking him many times.

Wait, I'm confused, I thought the housing market was collapsing.

It's a sad day when young professionals with good jobs still need one, two, or even more roommates to afford an apartment.

High rents, once limited to the sky high cost of living in Manhattan, have spread to the outer boroughs, making even once affordable neighborhoods, out of reach for many middle class New Yorkers. Who knew that the "cool" people would have ever ventured into Queens, of all places?

thankfully Pb is still cheap.

Anyone who thinks that the property owners who are in possession of rent-controlled apartments should be cut even the smallest amount of slack can go fuck themself. And your econ class can go fuck itself too. I'm not interested in the rationalizations about why people shouldn't live where they can't afford to. How does this work? When a neighborhood becomes popular and rents skyrocket, the people who have been living there all their lives should just pack up and move?

And on a somewhat more rational note, I believe that the reasons that rent-stabilized and rent-controlled apartments were created in the first place is being ignored almost entirely by these posts in place of some sort of capitalist rationale that favors the market over the people.

Manhattan and most of the boroughs forced out the working class years ago. Now the landlord's are trying to give the boot to most of the people who post here, the middle and upper-middle-class. You're next, suckers. Take your Ivy League degrees, your chumpchange income from your glamor jobs and your piddling trust funds and get the fuck of town. The Euros are here and they want your apartment.

For most people, renting a place that costs only 1/3 of their income would be a really crappy place. Before you say "Well then get a better job" consider that I am talking about people with good jobs... careers, even. Companies don't pay. If you want to live in a decent clean safe place you have to pay a good chunk of your income.

housing is a business that provides people with shelter, a necessary part of living in a civilized society.

Absolutely!

I totally agree!

All the more reason people shouldn't try to live where they can't afford to!

Tgirl = clueless. It does not matter how much the value of the property has gone up, what matters is the cost of maintaining that property. Also, these "Rules of Thumb" should be used to determine what you can afford, not what the landlord should be charging you. Regardless the "one third" rules assumes you are living in the burbs and own a car. We all know that if you are living in the city and you do own a car, you have no business whining.

obviously you don't know much about MY landlord, whom I was referring to in my entry. Landlord in question recently purchased the property we call home for 5.4 billion dollars. If they are not filthy rich, I don't know who is.

#2, remember that housing is a business that provides people with shelter, a necessary part of living in a civilized society. It's far different than running other types of businesses, such as selling stereo equipment.

Another thing you'll learn in an econ course is that there must be a sustainable labor class working in tandem with the upper class, otherwise things are liable to get nasty for everyone.

And by the way, remember that a good share of landlords had the good fortune to inherit their parents' or grandparents' buildings. Cheers to winning the dice toss.

Here we go again, same dance every year.

Tgirl - it's a big misconception that all landlords are filthy rich slumlords. It would be hard for their properties to increase at the market rate given that they contain RENT REGULATED units. Obviously you really don't know much about how the economics of properties work.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Haves are in the midst of a class war the likes of which has not been seen since the Gilded Age. The fact that they have no qualms about acting like predators is in direct contrast to the rest of the population who sit on their hands or engage in useless protests which only serve to amuse the rich. The one percent of the population that control the flow of money have made sure that those who receive wages are shortchanged at every turn and have succeeded in stagnating wages for 30+ years. Now that Manhattan has been turned into an enclave for the rich and Brooklyn and the Bronx are headed that way, we will eventually see a time when working people can no longer afford to live in any of the five boroughs of this city.

The working class have to be driven to the point where they are willing to take the fight to those who are intent on crushing them.

I am not exactly going to hold a pity-party for certain prominent NYC property owners whose "investment" (aka, my home, your home, as renters go) has doubled/ tripled/ quadrulpled in value over the last decade. Suck it up guys, you're filthy rich and you know it.

I just love it when all the New York socialists (a default condition, no doubt) say shit like "half our income is too much for rent".

It's as if they truly believe the price of rent has ANYTHING to do with the income of those renting.

Landlords aren't in the business of public service to those who want to live where they cannot afford.

Have any of these people ever taken an econ course?

"You should spend no more than a third of your income on rent."

Most people spend that much owning a car, let alone rent. Rent must be raised to keep up with inflation and rising costs. Just like every year when they raise it, the landlords will think its too low and the tenants will think its too high and everybody remains bitter, blah blah blah. Same old news.