Gothamist: Governor Paterson Enjoys His Rent-Stabilized Apartment

mingum

Sat, 24 May 2008 19:54:14 -0500

Rent regulation isn't government housing. It was put in place to protect renters from eviction and out of control rent increases. For example, if you moved into your rental apartment and then a year later when your lease was up and the landlord tried to raise your rent by 100% you'd be pissed off and have to move, especially if you worked nearby, had children in local schools and had started to make a life for yourself, which most adults do in their communities. Rent regulation protects renters from having to deal with this. Every year the committee decides what is a "fair" increase (usually it 3-6%) and that is the increase tenants pay when they renew their lease. Also you can't be evicted from your apartment or not be given a renewal lease just because the landlord wants to. Why is this so unfair? The law wasn't meant for POOR people, it was meant to PROTECT renters from unscrupulous landlords and to establish communities of people who weren't constantly being made to move or being evicted for no reason. I live in a place where this is happening, dozens of people are being unfairly evicted because they DONT HAVE RENT STABILIZATION.They have no recourse and they have to move because the landlord decided they want to "renovate" apartments that were renovated 5 years ago and double the rent. These are people who have been living in their apartments for only a few years. Under conditions like this we will only have a community of transients and then watch what happens when there is nobody around who gives a shit about the neighborhood. Rents have risen far more than salaries for people who have stayed in basically the same jobs (ie middle income people like teachers, cops, construction workers, receptionists and other people you depend upon to get the services you need in the city). MIXED COMMUNITIES are the key to success. We can't just have RICH people living here, it is not healthy for the community and creates more crime and more resentment between classes.

wredlich

Sun, 18 May 2008 08:36:31 -0500

31 comments so far, and no one even mentions the landlords. Does anyone believe in capitalism any more?

sonyactivision

Fri, 16 May 2008 21:30:12 -0500

The man is a parasite. Anybody who defends this system is a fucking parasite too. Talk all you want about "The Poor" and the "Working Man", but you're really just coming up with any excuse to keep your good thing going...at everyone else's expense. You love your rent-stabilized apartment? Fuck you. Abolish this bullshit.

glennQNYC

Fri, 16 May 2008 20:44:29 -0500

I think it shows Paterson's lack of ethics. Give up the place to someone who needs it!

Polemicist

Fri, 16 May 2008 17:12:15 -0500

Bad example Virgil. Rents have gone down in much of the Boston area. That said, it takes years to recover from rent control. I'd think Chicago is a better example. A price of a 1-bedroom apartment in Lincoln Park - the finest neighborhood in the city - is about the same price as Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. You can get a great 1-bedroom in a brand new doorman building for about $1,500 a month, downtown. That is about the price of a crap hole walk-up in Park Slope, and maybe a studio on Avenue D in the East Village. Chicago has low rents because they never got rent control. If anything, it's a wonder why rents are as high as they are in Boston. There are far fewer jobs than Chicago and the actual urban parts of the city are rather small. New York is more complicated - but a survey of incomes and industry profiles would indicate that Boston and Chicago should have similar rents. There is only one major difference - one city had rent control and the other did not.

kissel

Fri, 16 May 2008 16:12:26 -0500

"rent control and rent stabilization are completely different.research it. Rent stabilized apartments are not govt. subsidized." appleface, while this is partially true, instead of subsidizing RS tenants through your taxes you do it directly through your market rent or maintenance charge. The bottom line is the building needs to pay for fuel, water, salaries, etc. So if a resident is paying below the carrying cost of the unit it comes directly out of other residents hides. period.

Sinchy

Fri, 16 May 2008 16:09:47 -0500

Once the rent hits $2000 in about 15 years he will be forced to pay market rent. As someone who would be priced out of the the nabe he grew up in if forced out of my rent stabilized apt (which my family has been living in for many years) I feel like Patterson should do what is right and free that apt up for someone who needs affordable rent. He and his wife make plenty, but then again he probably loves where he lives just like many people who have fondness for their homes. There are rules and as long as he plays fair fine. I'd hate to live in a city where everyone was constantly forced to move every few years just because their nabe got trendy for a few years. NYU students would drive out all the old timers downtown if it weren't for stabilization. Now with a week dollar all the landlords would be turning their apts into de facto hotels for euro visitors.

eyekantspel

Fri, 16 May 2008 15:21:47 -0500

rent stablization and rent control are both crap. the way for an individual to control escalating housing costs is to buy a place. If you are priced out of one market, move to another. I'd like to live in a beach house in Maui, but I can't afford it. That doesn't mean I should force someone to allow me to rent it for less than the value. It just means I need to lower my expectations or step up my game. People making $200,000+ a year benefitting from rent control and rent stabilization should be outed and humiliated. It makes Patterson's lack of charitable giving even more unforgivable. I guess all his money is being spent on cheating on his wife at Motel 6. Not that I want to hear any more about that.

PBRK

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:59:50 -0500

Boston's mistake was ending rent control too fast- before developers could build up the rental stock. Developers don't want to build rentals when rent controls exist because the City will step in and recapture the rental units into the system as it sees fit- possibly ruining a long term investment strategy the developer was planning. So now we are stuck with too many luxury condos for sale.

TKaisen

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:55:13 -0500

I'd encourage you to take a look at other major cities which don't have rent control and come back and tell us all about their cheap rent. You could start with Boston, which did away with its system several years ago, and is ridiculously expensive. Boston is expensive, yes, but you can also get a 2-bedroom with parking in Brookline (just outside of Fenway park... 20 minute subway ride on the green line to gov't center) for less than $2000. "Expensive" is relative. You can still get twice the apartment for less in Boston.

Mr Mel

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:48:33 -0500

#8 The odds are he paid market rate. The article doesn't say when he occupied the place. The whole argument is fallacious. I don't believe in the history of civilization someone volunteered to have his rent raised, so why should he. The rent control laws are archaic, where is it written that there is a constitutional or God given right to live in Manhattan and have cheap rent. The laws were made in the WWII era to protect the rents of city residents from new people wanting to move here to work. It was unfair but necessary. It should be limited,now, to the elderly and not their heirs. Let's stop beating up on the new Gov, we'll have our chance soon enough.

JenChungsBra

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:46:59 -0500

He pays over $1200 for a two-bedroom in Harlem? SUCKER!!!!!!

HowBoutDemCowboys

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:37:58 -0500

I can't wait for the entire US economic system to fall apart. Because of inflation, which is a HUGE scam, people always want more money because the cost of living increases so people want more money because the cost of living increases so people want more money... oh you get the idea.

AvenueHebrew

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:35:43 -0500

TSOL, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Rent stabilization doesn't just give people apartments. It can be a complicated process to be accepted, and they expect the tenants be employed with credit in good standing. They come with requirements to keep deadbeats out, and the tenants are encouraged to take active interest in their governance. Tenants have to be responsible. A couple years ago I tried to apply to a rent-stabilized building with a full-time student friend. For a 2-bedroom they required our combined income be above roughly $45k a year. I had only been temping since moving to the city a year earlier (often working for peanuts) while my roomie didn't work at all - for us to qualify, he would have needed guarantor agreements out the ass. So we weren't considered reliable enough to have a place - and honestly, I was okay with that. I pay my rent on time, but at that period my ability to pay the bills was questionable. Rent stabilization doesn't brook questionable.

JacqueMehoff

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:22:52 -0500

there are luxury high rises that are "rent stabilized". yes, every apartment is rent stablized. it protects every NYC resident. Boston is going through some gentrification changes. Watch "the verdict" and you'll see how that city has changed in a short time.

virgil

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:11:36 -0500

As far as this great myth that it's rent control and stabilization that keep the RE market high, I'd encourage you to take a look at other major cities which don't have rent control and come back and tell us all about their cheap rent. You could start with Boston, which did away with its system several years ago, and is ridiculously expensive. People charge as much as they possibly can. Period. And in a marquee metropolis like NYC, that's a hell of a lot, and in the long run, always will be. The only thing that lowers rents is when people no longer want to move here. Which happens from time to time.

berniegoetz

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:05:30 -0500

After finding out how little he gave in charity last year I think we should just start calling him Gov. Cheapskate.

TSOL

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:01:53 -0500

"rent control and rent stabilization are completely different" They both reward people for doing nothing (less than nothing) and punish the rest of the population with a distorted housing market.

PBRK

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:00:00 -0500

I like Paterson so far but this shows how the rent stab system is broken. Not even addressing his high income- he already owns a house. The City shouldn't be required to protect his rental.

appleface

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:52:43 -0500

rent control and rent stabilization are completely different. research it. Rent stabilized apartments are not govt. subsidized.

EricRoberts

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:51:44 -0500

don't blame me, i voted for Spitzer.

babyhitler

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:49:30 -0500

we should get rid of rent stabilization. Poor people have no place in manhattan. if you want your rent stablized, move to rhode island.

sakuranbo

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:48:03 -0500

Somehow this man makes me feel like he's one of us.

jaja007

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:45:53 -0500

Good for Patterson. I'm against rent stablized apartments. I think they're a scam. But they're there - so why shouldnt the Governor take advantage. Maybe we'll stop hearing about the mythololgical granny in her rent stabilized apartment eating cat food, and see the truth. Most people in these apartments make a decent living.

kissel

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:39:58 -0500

when will we finally get rid of this system like other cities across the country have already done. people like to argue that it doesnt increase everyone's cost to live in the city, but that is a ridiculous argument. THe building needs to pay costs, so everyones market charges are far higher than they need to be (not to mention taxes for other housing subsidies). Everyone feels entitled to something nowadays. I know I cant afford to live in Manhattan as much as I would love to, so I dont. And I dont expect someone else to pick up the tab for me.

dbc

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:38:16 -0500

Mr Mel, where does it say he initially paid market rate? I didn't see that in the article.

Mr Mel

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:20:19 -0500

When he rented the apartment initially he paid market rate. Why is he different than some one who bought an apartment at that time for $250,000 and can sell it now for $1,000,000. Timing is the keyword here, not earnings.

BMMDan

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:14:09 -0500

"The Paterson own a home upstate" Is this what he is referred to now? The Paterson is displeased.

JacqueMehoff

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:09:41 -0500

if he's not staying at the Governor's Mansion then no biggie. God Bless you Gov. Paterson.

jack9

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:07:55 -0500

"When asked by the Sun, Paterson said the rent is appropriate, Paterson said the rent was appropriate, given the city's rent regulations."

EastRiver

Fri, 16 May 2008 12:57:51 -0500

good for them. they got in on a good deal and they are the lucky ones. I couldn't disagree more. Rent stabilization is not a lottery or a flea market where someone scores a deal. It was meant for people of lower income and people that don't own a home elsewhere. People like this give the programs a bad name and give ammunition to those that would eliminate the program altogether.

Papercutninja

Fri, 16 May 2008 12:56:18 -0500

What's the big deal? Why SHOULDN'T he be able to live in a rent-stabilized apartment? What's the big freaking deal? Why is everyone out to get him? Why do i have so many questions?

killerasp

Fri, 16 May 2008 12:53:22 -0500

oh come on...stop hating on the man just because they pay less rent than you. good for them. they got in on a good deal and they are the lucky ones. just b/c you have money doesnt mean you need to flaunt it by buying/renting things you cant afford.