Gothamist: Rangel Says His Rent is Fine, Blasts the NY Times

Bottomless Chips

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:49:42 -0500

It's obvious that the vast majority of posters are confusing rent stabilization with other programs or just don't know what it means. "Rent stabilization" places restrictions on the amount landlords can increase an existing tenants rent from year to year. It prevents them from making outrageous rent increases of 50% or 100%. I don't think anyone's confusing it. We've all bemoaned governmental regulation in a private marketplace. What you call outrageous could very well be the fair market value. Even if the increase isn't what the current marketplace would indicate, who cares? It's not the renter's place. That's why it's called renting. Private property should be just that. When government creeps in, you get more and more regulation. Why do the rent stabilized and rent control buildings in my neighborhood look like shit on the outside (and probably on the inside) while every other building is kept in nice order? Hmm... Governmental intervention in the form of RS and RC. There's no incentive for the owners to keep the place as nice when the demand is always going to stay high because of an artificial price ceiling. This all leads to lower property values and thus lower revenues for the schools. Ah, the beauty of a bureaucracy! It's completely anti-free market.

rdc

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:55:24 -0500

What a scumbag.

kcuttsjr

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:44:54 -0500

I have a remix of clips from his press conference on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvGBqylObUM

bxbrian

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0500

First of all, it's Rezko, and second of all, you're a fucking moron.

glennQNYC

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:31:23 -0500

The guy is another politician working the system like so many before him. Like the questionable Obama-Resco deal the leftists will make excuses for the Democrat(s) and generally sweep the issues under the carpet. Perfect example why this Democratic-lead Congress' approval rating is a record breaking 9%!

west side Michael

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:21:12 -0500

The minute fugothamist leaves 7 people will take his/her/it's place............adios.

JacqueMehoff

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:16:48 -0500

that $2k limit is a joke. how cases of Pb can I buy with that? God Bless you Congressman Rangel.

kissel

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:17:34 -0500

rangle is consciously breaking the law. the combined apartments are being rented on individual leases - by doing so he skirts the $2000 limit and so there is no income check. this is conscious and it also means it is a kickback from the owner for something. he definitely needs to be investigated, it would seem a lot of dirt would turn up.

TKaisen

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:10:28 -0500

Oh, for God's sake, leave him alone. He was living on 135th St when none of you white people would go within 40 blocks of that street. What a bunch of self-righteous phonies. Yeah, that makes it fine. Ass.

moonbeam

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:28:17 -0500

Rfive

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:16:18 -0500

Lay offa Chollie! He's one of us that rose to the top! To a deeluxe apartment in the sky!!! Movin on up!

nanna

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:37:13 -0500

"Rangel went on to say that he had no idea people were evicted from their rent-stabilized apartments in order for market-rate conversions." Rangel would have to live in China not to know that..... that's just stupid.

Bottomless Chips

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:34:55 -0500

But by living in a rent-stabilized apartment, Rangel isn't depriving taxpayers and the greater public of anything. The landlord just can't collect the full market-value rent, which really makes no difference to the rest of us. Huh? Everyone who lives in New Orleans cost the taxpayers how many billions? They lived with free, government flood insurance, essentially. This made everyone poorer, from those in Maine to Florida to Washington. We all subsidize their artificially low housing prices. It should cost a lot more from flood insurance and property values to live below sea level on the coast. But it's not because we basically subsidize it. Same idea here.

Tim N.

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:24:45 -0500

Oh, for God's sake, leave him alone. He was living on 135th St when none of you white people would go within 40 blocks of that street. What a bunch of self-righteous phonies.

eyekantspel

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:23:15 -0500

The landlord just can't collect the full market-value rent, which really makes no difference to the rest of us. And you're wrong: it's not a moral issue, it's a legal one. The general belief is that those who are not in rent-controlled or rent-stablized apartments indirectly subsidize those in rent-controlled/stabilized units. I don't know if Rangel has a sweetheart deal with the building owner... if so, that's really outside of the rent-control debate.

eyekantspel

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:06:29 -0500

legal or not, it just reflects how stupid the rent control system is, and how it is exploited by people who don't need it.

GOP

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:59:53 -0500

he's merely preventing the gentrification of harlem

Schwartzie

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:46:32 -0500

OK Virgil, I agree with you that the right thing to do with a Social Security check that you don't need is to refuse it. But by living in a rent-stabilized apartment, Rangel isn't depriving taxpayers and the greater public of anything. The landlord just can't collect the full market-value rent, which really makes no difference to the rest of us. And you're wrong: it's not a moral issue, it's a legal one.

WorksInDUMBO

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:44:46 -0500

He's not only focusing just on the legal aspect of it, but also seems to spend a lot of time nitpicking over the use of the word "penthouse" to describe his luxurious apartment.

virgil

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:27:47 -0500

It's not a legal issue, it's moral, and he knows it, which is why he's focusing on the legal aspect. As a public servant, he should have at least a smidgen of conscience. He's wealthy: let him pay regular rent, which is well within his means, and show that he cares about the people who have elected him again and again by releasing these properties to the folks who actually need them. It's similar to social security. If you're wealthy, you're entitled to it legally, but it would be nice, once in a while, to see someone say: you know what? I'm actually doing pretty well; give this to someone who needs it. But that would be going against our national religion: unfettered global hypercapitalism.

theevilone

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:53:49 -0500

Poor Rangel. He just can't count - there's one of him and 4 apartments. Methinks that is not quite right.

Dave Hogarty

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:53:11 -0500

The press has some nerve to insinuate the venality of a politician who's suckled at the taxpayers' teat for three decades. They need to learn their place, shut the hell up, and just obey. Plus, it's a veteran's sacrosanct right to do whatever the hell they want. If someone calls them on it, he's obviously an unpatriotic America-hater.

JacqueMehoff

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:45:33 -0500

maybe John McCain can help the veterans?

editedby

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:44:19 -0500

I believe jackmeoff is exhibiting sarcasm. Rangel's right it's not a gift because they are rent stabilized, but I don't believe you can legally have four rent stabilized apartments. The Olnicks and Rangels think they have a legal out, we'll see, won't hold my breath.

ANGRYGOD11

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:41:16 -0500

There are plenty of homeless veterans who could use a nice place to stay. One of the greatest American ideals is NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW. The fact he might be a great congressman or veteran should only be a factor for mercy, never privilege for the powerful.

JacqueMehoff

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:38:26 -0500

God bless you Charlie Rangel. why should you report rent on one's income taxes. the reporter was stupid. besides as a senior citizen he's also entitled to SCRIE benefits. We all benefit from numerous government programs, rich and poor. the rich even more so but they still bitch and whine when the poor get's a tiny slice. Because it means less for them.

bxbrian

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:33:20 -0500

Thankfully Pb is still cheap.

spnder

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:31:24 -0500

*Great* argument there, Jacque. Proves my point, exactly. The sheep goes Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

zodak

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:21:53 -0500

what an arrogant a-hole. i can't believe people here are defending him. he doesn't need to resign, he just has to give up 3 of those apartments to people FROM HIS OWN NEIGHBORHOOD.

JacqueMehoff

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:20:48 -0500

God Bless you Congressman Rangel. you SERVED your country and we can never repay you enough for your service. Never enough.

drewo

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:17:32 -0500

Rangel doth protest too much?

Schwartzie

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:16:15 -0500

The whole point of the press is to look into things that don't seem quite right and report on them. With the advent of opinion/news/entertainment hybrids, this original mandate is often forgotten. I'm not familiar with the rules governing rent stabilized apartments. If he's doing something illegal, he clearly needs to get himself on the right side of the law. If he's not, he should consider at the very least relocating the campaign office: it just looks bad and, unfortunately for him, there are more stringent standards of propriety for politicians. But let's not begrudge the guy because he's lived in a place for twenty years and has what is now a good deal. That just smacks of jealousy. As far as his main residence being listed as two separate units in state housing records, that's hardly his fault: the previous tenant combined the units and the landlord's responsible for keeping the state up to date.

bjornsaucey

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:11:53 -0500

I liked having rent stabilization, but I know far more people want it than can get it. I thought those controls were put in place to protect the working and middle class, neither of which Rangle is. 3-4 families would benefit far more from affordable housing than another career pol would.

spnder

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:56:18 -0500

I'm sorry, but what does being black and having served your country got to do with it? The problem here appears to be someone acting above the law. Again. And again, loyal friends and supporters just want to let it go. It happens on the left, it happens on the right, and I'm sick of it. I'm not sure if he did anything wrong, but truth will prevail in the end. Don't tell me that our press shouldn't report on the issue out of respect for his service to his country.

fugothamist

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:55:22 -0500

i cant believe there are idiots here defending this rat i hate nyc more and more every day i know, i know , i should just "leave", right? way ahead of you, pricks

djwerdna

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:54:25 -0500

Rangel may be a good congressman (I don't know enough about him to make an evaluation), but there seems to be some unethical activity here. For him to be so belligerent towards a valid questioning of his actions is very disappointing.

Mr Mel

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:51:04 -0500

I know Charlie Rangel for 30 or so years, he is no freeloader. In the annals of history no right minded person ever paid more rent than he had to. We've got the right guy at the right place, let's back off. What he's done for his country, which includes military combat and his service in the House is the important thing here and he doesn't deserve this disrespect.

JacqueMehoff

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:47:36 -0500

God Bless You Rep. Rangel you served your country, ask if the reporter did and ask if he was black and served.

fugothamist

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:46:45 -0500

what a f*cking assh*le

JenChungsBra

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:44:12 -0500

BTW, I just want to say that I hope Rangel doesn't go down for this because it's very good for New York to have one of our own as the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. VERY good. It's OK to rake him over the coals but it would suck to lose him altogether.

Outter Burrougher

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:43:46 -0500

Smart on him if he's trying to make the gift question the issue here, because he's right about it not constituting a gift. The real problem is the fact that he occupies multiple units and that one of them is for his office as opposed to residence.

JenChungsBra

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:42:06 -0500

It's not an issue of whether you're paying the rent Congressman, it's a matter of why you have FOUR apartments that are all rent controlled and why you're using one of them for an office in clear violation of the law. Got something to say about that?