Gothamist: Elected Leaders with Rent-Stabilized Apartments and Second Homes

missunderstood

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:03:22 -0500

My landlord owns about 100 units, he's making a lot off of his stabilized apartments even after expenses.

kissel

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:24:54 -0500

18 - not sure how much money he's making on it, but I dont think its that much. He most likely pays about 800 bucks a month to the city in property tax thanks to NYC rediculous tax structure, then he has to pay income tax on your rent, then there is the price for heating, personnel (union) and building maintenance. But I agree, NYC is too expensive, but the NYC government makes it much more expensive than it otherwise would have to be by overly regulating everything and creating such a high tax situation.

glennQNYC

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:46:54 -0500

Dumbasses will still vote for/support these crooks too.

ianmac47

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:16:21 -0500

Maybe the problem is simply that rent stabilization needs to be more widely available, to everyone, all the time, and not so limited that winning the lottery carries better odds.

missunderstood

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:45:25 -0500

Oh that's just absurd. "Market" rent in NYC is just absurdly high. I'm paying over $1800 (stabilized) for a rickety 1 bedroom tenement walk up. That is a LOT of money and my landlord is making a hefty profit. I don't know what you define as a "real job", but most people with a pretty decent job cannot pay over $50,000 a year in rent for a small apartment.

TSOL

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:56:49 -0500

Forget income cap, there should be an education cap. Anyone with more than an associate's degree should pay market rent! In my experience in the east village, all too often: Rent stabilized apartment = middle aged "artist" avoiding growing up and getting a real job.

missunderstood

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:47:21 -0500

Wow, I'm an East Village drag queen in a stabilized apartment for 17 years and I still pay more than Christine Quinn! Even stabilized rents start to climb quickly after a while. An increase of a given percent gets bigger as the rent goes up. You'd think these people would be protecting stabilization instead of letting it get whittled away.

abcohen

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:59:34 -0500

And why cant I find a nice two bedroom... oh wait I remember cause these people with second homes have them!!!!! ARRRGGGGG We need some rent reform in the city!

nicemarmot

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:23:22 -0500

Oh yes. Many of the ancients who "live" in Stuy Town/PCV own multiple properties elsewhere. That's protecting the little guy all right.

ANGRYGOD11

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:44:33 -0500

You can own property elsewhere, you just have to qualify as a resident here. That's insanely easy to do.

Steven

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:23:22 -0500

Why do you think the richer get richer?

cutlass

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:07:35 -0500

This is pretty freaking simple. If you own property elsewhere, you don't qualify for Rent Stabilization. If you make more than four times your rent, you don't qualify for rent stabilization. There is nothing wrong with the concept of rent stabilization, but it's about time to make it do what it's supposed to do: protect lower to middle class working people. It is not supposed to make the upper-middle class richer.

faprilano

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:00:33 -0500

unrepentant - well it's certainly not meant to house high paid polititians that can more than afford market rate rents!

interlard

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:21:21 -0500

I dunno. There's something to be said for the politicians experiencing living in a $1,600 rent stabilized apartment. I hope it's representative of what other people have to live in.

UnrepentantFenian

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:14:17 -0500

Rent stabilization isn't meant to be a handout to the working poor. It was meant to keep the middle class from being priced out.

zodak

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:12:43 -0500

wait, since when are these guys considered middle class???!

abzme

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:12:07 -0500

I can't believe these guys think this practice is okay.

cucarachita

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:40:41 -0500

What is the alternative? Make our city officials actually live in the city and pay real rents? Hmm. Now that's an idea. Probably they would prefer that they not pay for their city homes at all, and that their city homes be a perk of being a city official. Because they're doing us a favor by working for the city, when they could be living someplace nice. Right? Is that how I'm to understand this practice?

faprilano

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:24:28 -0500

please. 40x the monthly rent on a $1,400/month rent stabilized apartment is only $56,000. there should be a cap on rent stabilized apartment income at somewhere around $60,000 for the household. rent stabilization has so lost it's original meaning and intention.

UnrepentantFenian

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:11:57 -0500

Oh, and Rangel is a thief.

UnrepentantFenian

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:11:19 -0500

I agree, but are you suggesting a cap of 80k per person or per household? I'd say 70k for a single person and 100k for household.

gothampunk

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:53:55 -0500

there should definitely be an income cap on rent stabilized apartments, 80k seems more than resonable to me.