State Assembly Votes to Revise Rent-Regulation Laws

50%? My rent was more like 80%!

Sure, #51, a landlord owning a building handed down to him from his parents' parents (90% of landlords) is definitely 30 years of hard work. Lets bring out the violins for this guy.

My last landlord bought a small walk-up building. He worked at JFK as an airplane mechanic and maintained the building perfectly. When the airline he worked for failed, he had to go to another city to get health benefits and enough years to qualify for a pension and fly back to NY to maintain the building on his days off.

That's the story of independent building owner in NYC.

Bring out the violins or STFU.

Too many people think landlords are just billionaire owners of thousands of units, but it's not that simple. Many own a small building and work a full time job. The rent pays the mortage, taxes, insurance and the owner's home. The building will be the retirement nest egg after 30 years of hard work.

Your story reminded me of Bianca Jagger (Mick's first ex-wife)recently lost her rent stabilized apartment because she has a visa. Since a visa means she's not a resident of the USA, she's not entitled to a rent stabilized apartment in NY.

Mick Jagger's ex-wife needs a rent stabilized apartment?

As much as Charlie Rangel need four. ;)

Not to follow up my own post, but...

This reminds me of the story a few years back about how Cyndi Lauper (whom I adore and wish no ill, but...) went to court to fight a price increase on her ridiculously low-priced rent-stabilized (or maybe controlled? -- whatever) Central Park West 2- or 3-bedroom apartment. She was only paying like a little over $2,000/month or some sh!t, yet despite being a multi-millionaire, felt the need to fight it. Can't recall the outcome, but to me that was a sure sign that the current system has failed miserably!

I'm a strong proponent of regulation in many areas, but when it comes to rents in NYC, it's a complete failure! We need LESS, not MORE! We'll never see an end to artificially inflated rent prices until we even out the playing field. Another nail indeed, at least for those of us not lucky enough to have landed a rent-controlled crib. Le sigh.

this could be a start of Stuy town/PCV going back to it's original form. It depends on how desperate the new owners are.

The landlords knew what they were getting into when they purchased the buildings.

Why are the Free Marketeers now whining? Because the Dems now control NYS after years of Republican misrule, that put profit over people?

The landlords could have invested elsewhere. They choose to buy a RS building. They gambled, like capitalists do, hoping to make a fortune. They lost.

Welcome to the Darwinian world of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. Now get a real job.

Amen, #35.

Exactly. And this is why I have zero sympathy for the landlords. Though I agree with several things Bottomless Chips has said, the landlords chose to buy an RS building, rather than investing elsewhere. They knew the possible conequences ... so screw them.

Without wading into another inane debate here, I will simply say "YAY!"

Now let's see if the State Senate delivers...

If the Free Market is in such freefall, landlords might eventually embrace rent stabilization as a way to preserve their income. $35 trillion in wealth has been lost worldwide and that means fewer millionaires from Europe or Asia who want a pad in NYC and can crowd out area natives with their money. The bidding war is over and the landlords are in survival mode. Having a unit that's stabilized is a big selling point right now if they want long-term tennants that provide a steady stream of income while market rate units go empty.

Word...

there's already a yearly renewal process for affordable housing and a much more in depth investigation to get that housing. what more do they want?

you're getting all their financial info, tax returns, interest statements, bank accounts, proof of primary residence. these people are doing it by the book and not scamming anyone.

did you know alistair cooke lived in a rent stabilized apt. on park ave?

Your post contradicts itself. On one hand, you're saying the process does include scrutiny of the tenant's finances. However, you then point out that a wealthy public figure took advantage of the system. How was he able to get away with that? Thanks.

It wouldn't be so bad if rent control and stabilization benefitted those who most need it.

Unfortunately, it isn't means tested so there are a lot of people who are very well to do and make plenty of money paying next to nothing for nice apartments in good neighborhoods. Their only qualification seems to be they've been in the apartment forever. The sick part is that the far less well off have to subsidize these people with higher rents.

I certainly don't feel sorry for the landlords who have owned this city for decades, but I do not understand the regulation that would limit "the amount a landlord can raise the rent after an apartment's been vacated."

There should be some form of audit system where tenants' annual income is examined to determine if they exceed the threshold.

This is great news. Next up should be the seizure of properties that landlords keep empty rather than rent at a lower rate. How many businesses have shuttered or forced out because of greedy landlords seeking higher rents, this so called "market" rate that doesn't really exist? There is no free market, there never has been, it's a lie, an illusion created by capitalists to manipulate prices to their advantage. All markets have always been regulated, as well they should be.

WTF are you talking about?

So the government knows what rate to set it at?

How many businesses have shuttered or forced out because of greedy landlords seeking higher rents, this so called "market" rate that doesn't really exist?

I love liberals. If you seek to make a profit in this country, you're greedy in the pejorative sense.

Let's just let government decide the prices for everything and see how that works out. Okay?

If you would rather not have a tenant than rent out your space for a lower rate, you are a piece of shit who is stifling business and putting people out of work, and you are creating urban blight, and the government should intervene.

If you would rather not have a tenant than rent out your space for a lower rate, you are a piece of shit who is stifling business and putting people out of work, and you are creating urban blight, and the government should intervene.

You don't get it. It's my building and I can do whatever the zoning permits me to do in it. If I want to rent it out to no one, I should be allowed to. If I want to use it as my painting studio. Fine. If I want to rent it to my family. Fine. If I want to only rent it to Asians. Fine. If I only want rent to women. Fine. If I only want to rent to gays. Fine.

It's private property. Government laws to force you to rent to all people, but that's illegal.

Then to require me to set prices at a certain level is unequivocally illegal.

Government is fucking ridiculous.

And another thing. "Your" building does not exist in a vacuum. "Your" building depends on "our" water delivery system, on "our" power grid, on "our" streets, "our" sewage system, "our" sanitation department. You can't just do whatever you want. You have to COOPERATE. Again, if you don't want to be a contributing part of SOCIETY as opposed to just being a leach, here to serve only yourself, then you should be cut off entirely.

And another thing. "Your" building does not exist in a vacuum. "Your" building depends on "our" water delivery system, on "our" power grid, on "our" streets, "our" sewage system, "our" sanitation department. You can't just do whatever you want. You have to COOPERATE. Again, if you don't want to be a contributing part of SOCIETY as opposed to just being a leach, here to serve only yourself, then you should be cut off entirely.

I've now shot 1208 holes in your flimsy, populist argument. Keep playing, though.

actually BC you didn't win the argument against SP, you just come across as a whiner who doesn't like to contribute to society but enjoys it's benefits, all while blaming those crazy libruls.

actually BC you didn't win the argument against SP, you just come across as a whiner who doesn't like to contribute to society but enjoys it's benefits, all while blaming those crazy libruls.

On the contrary. I donate much of my money to private charities and volunteer on the weekend. I say this not to say, "Hey! I do good things."

I say it for that reason, but mostly because of my distrust of public charity. I see the work the Red Cross and Salvation Army---it's 10 times better than an uneducated social worker in this city. Yet, we keep subsidizing these awful programs. It's throwing spaghetti at the ceiling and seeing what sticks. The stuff that falls is your tax dollars going down the tubes.

I hate the paradigm in this country of,"Oh, I give plenty of money in taxes so I don't need to help." Or, "Hey, I'm a liberal I do a lot to help out."

No. In neither statement are you right.

So, yes, I am whining. You got me on that. But it's a good cause to whine about because I hate seeing this waste and perverse effects we have on the lower and middle classes.

That's all well and good, I'm glad you have so much time and energy to devote to your community. I too volunteer when I can with NYCares. But that's not good enough. Society (that concept again) can't sit back and just hope and pray that people will behave ethically and contribute. We need rules. Just as baseball needs a drug policy to make sure people aren't cheating. For every one of you socially responsible capitalists, there are a thousand others who cheat on their taxes, have offshore accounts, who have political influence to rig the system to their benefit. And then there are the cream of the crop, the Bernie Madoffs, the Kenneth Lays and Jeffrey Skillings and Andrew Fastows etc...

I find it disgusting that you are trumpeting the virtues of unregulated, so called "free" markets, when we are in the worst financial crisis we have seen in almost a century, largely because of deregulation. When left to their own devices, capitalists will destroy everything in their paths like a swarm of locusts. We need MORE regulation, not less.

And then there are the cream of the crop, the Bernie Madoffs, the Kenneth Lays and Jeffrey Skillings and Andrew Fastows etc...

We spend close to a billion dollars a year on the SEC. And now we're finding out they had warnings for 10 years about Madoff and did nothing.

We're finding new mini-Madoffs who ran amok this past decade when the SEC was bigger than ever.

Is the answer really to grow the SEC even more?

No.

The SEC is made of college grads and people who--though best intentioned--are, in the aggregate, not as smart and savvy as those on Wall St. If you're a smart guy do you go work for a company as an analyst and pull in $150,000 at partner level? Or do you work at the SEC making half that with little room to grow?

That's the nature of the beast, and more bureaucrats won't stop it.

You need to stop government propping up unsuccessful businesses. That way failure is really failure. Sure it sounds great to say we can police fraud. But we can't. You have to let it police itself and let bad companies fail. Because fraud is not a viable strategy and the companies that do commit fraud have already policed themselves into the death penalty.

Answered like a true ego-centric capitalist apologist. Not everyone is motivated by the potential to make the most money. That's where your logic fails you. The best and brightest don't automatically go for the highest price. Actually, the people who are most motivated by money tend to be shallow, cut throat, amoral, self centered and not very bright.

Actually, the people who are most motivated by money tend to be shallow, cut throat, amoral, self centered and not very bright.

You have it ass backwards.

It's those in the top 1% who don't have to always make decisions out of "greed." It's those who make $20,000 who do have to make the "greedy" decisions because a dollar is more important to them.

So would you lump those in a blue collar warehouse job in Brooklyn as "cut throat, amoral, and self-centered?"

Answered like a true ego-centric capitalist apologist. Not everyone is motivated by the potential to make the most money.

But this post is really where you show your economic ignorance. I never said people are motivated to make the most money. That's not true. I said people are motivated to work in the best interests--BIG DIFFERENCE. So looking to save money, the value of goods, and the time preference of their savings/consumption is all part of their "best interests."

But as long as we all work in our own best interests we can succeed.

It's called "society." Margaret Thatcher tried to say there was no such thing, but she, and you, are wrong. We are unfortunately all in this together. If you don't want to play along, go live on a deserted island somewhere and stop poising life for the rest of us. Or better yet, just kill yourself. There's less and less clean air to go around these days, and you clearly don't deserve to share in it.

No. We're not all in it together. I shouldn't have to be forced to pay for your bad investments, state's deficits, or federal transfers of wealth.

But as long as we all work in our own best interests we can succeed.

Make yourself happy, move to Cuba.

because it's the Free Market.

ayn rand land.

Helping the less fortunate is built into the idea of civilization and community. In spite of your scorn, compassion for other people is actually a good quality; most major religions insist on it.

Rent regulation reform is a good goal--weed out those people who are simply milking the system--but the attitude that people should just make more money is inhumane and unrealistic. It's not that helping people is bad; it's just being done foolishly, and needs to be thought out better.

Why didn't Boston rents go down after they did away with rent control?

Helping the less fortunate is built into the idea of civilization and community. In spite of your scorn, compassion for other people is actually a good quality; most major religions insist on it.

You don't get it. You're bleeding heart policies do the opposite. They create demand. They promote awful living conditions. Here's an econ 101 lesson for you:

Say I have 10 apartments to rent out and 100 people are interested at the price of $1000, how many people would be interested at the gov't mandated price of $500? Probably 1,000. But I only still have 10 apartments. And If I know that demand is going to be so high, what incentive do I have to clean up the place?

The most compassionate social structure is to allow the price system and capitalism to thrive. Socialism has never worked and just makes more people poor.

Why didn't Boston rents go down after they did away with rent control?

Duh. Because the price ceiling was removed. I never argued that prices wouldn't skyrocket. But what's wrong with high prices? Should we start giving away SoHo apartments for free? Prices allocate resources and goods in the fairest way possible. Lotteries for rent control apartments are arbitrary and create that harmful demand I discussed.

The most compassionate social structure is to allow the price system and capitalism to thrive.

I don't really disagree with your overall point, but this seems pretty absurd. Do you hold this belief only in respect to rent control, or for all aspects of the economy?

Of course.

But I also recognize the stigma. But the times when the people are "exploited" are usually when government helped coordinate such behavior through corporatism/fascism.

"Won't anyone think of the landlords!?"

Ok, I thought about them, and I really don't feel anything differently toward them. The country is in a recession, the vacancy rate in NYC has actually risen, and neighborhoods that were counting on "gentrification" don't even have that to look forward to anymore. (READ: Atlantic Yards) People, and I say people not tenents, aren't willing to pay because they cant afford it. Last I checked landlords had money, they already have a place to live. Generally that place is better than the one that they themselves are renting. The cost of doing business globally has dropped, so it's almost hard to conceive that landlords are hurting that much. One of the principles of finance and sales is, it's better to have $5.00 now than nothing later, as this is $5.00 you didn't have earlier.

The fact is, everyone is suffering. Why is one person's plight more important or sacred than anyone else. Home ownership, land ownership, building ownership are all investments. Ask anyone on Wall Street right now what an investment means. No investment is guaranteed, and we're all seeing what that means. There is a degree of risk involved

It comes down, who are the landlords to complain that they should be getting more with less? If it was that easy, all the rich would be buying up all the available properties and developing them to buy their way out of the recess......oh wait, I'm sorry, they don't have any money to do this anyway right....?

It comes down, who are the landlords to complain that they should be getting more with less?

Ok, I won't argue with either on of you about this because both of your points are quite valid. I will however remind you of the point of what I said, and the point that others have made through this thread...

It's an investment. The owners assume any and all risk involved. If I want to spend my life savings on buying swamp land in New Orleans with the hopes of improving it or making money off of it, it's my money, my property, and ultimately my responsibility. Furthermore, If I choose to spend my money on a building in NYC that I'm renting to people and they in turn finance my multi million dollar home on Dune Road during hurricane season, it's my decision. That said, NOBODY, and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOBODY should and can feel the slightest ounce of sorrow or pity for me. Think about it next time someone tells either of you where to go when you don't get what you want. Grow up.

I presume that you also believe that your tax dollars are well spent to bail out every corporation that "reinvests" your money on corporate perks and bonuses? I mean, it's technically their money now, isn't it?

Landlords are not getting bailed out, and if they were I would be completely against it.

You're missing the key point: IT'S PRIVATE FUCKING PROPERTY

This is bull.

If this passes, you are going to have landlords letting buildings rot, or burning them.

Why should renters have priority in a building they DO NOT own?

After having low rents for decades the renters should have saved something and moved on.

Excuse me, Grandzu, but when were the rents EVER low?????

Except not everyone has had the opportunity to "save for decades." Younger people just starting out, having finished college or continuing education are having an increasingly difficult time now that there are no jobs and those with impending masters degrees are forced to take minimum wage jobs.

I hate to sound unsympathetic, but the "Younger people just starting out, having finished college or continuing education are having an increasingly difficult time now that there are no jobs and those with impending masters degrees are forced to take minimum wage jobs" mentioned by dogbraincatsan don't have some inalienable right to live in Manhattan or Williamsburg once they graduate from college. If they don't have a job in NYC that covers their cost of living in NYC then they can find a job somewhere else with a lower cost of living.

and when did I ever say Williamsburg or Manhattan?? Try Sheepshead Bay, Gravesend, Crown Heights, Kensington...places where FAMILIES live and the rents are/were affordable.

It becomes increasingly frustrating that "young" in NYC has become synonymous with "transplant." Those with family obligations (disabled parents, for one) and simply those who don't want to be pushed out of their hometown don't deserve to live here? Pretty soon we'll have a city full of people who were able to save up in their little low-cost-of-living hometowns and the real new yorkers will have to move to veritable ghost towns abandoned by those with pope dreams of making it in the big city. The whitewashing of the city continues!

Look I've lived in this city my whole life and I can't afford it, but that's a free market and we're seeing the proof of that now with dropping prices.

Fairness; how does that come into play here. Liberals equate equality with equality of outcome, not opportunity as it should be.

this is GREAT news!!!!!

I find it odd that the RSA is against stabilization.

i know, good thing about this.

even with lower rents the prices are unbearable, it is ridiculous. maybe the reason we're the only city who needs these laws is because we're the only city with these insane prices where people can't even live, it's sickening.

maybe the reason we're the only city who needs these laws is because we're the only city with these insane prices where people can't even live, it's sickening.

We're not the only city with these kind of prices. Tokyo is as bad, if not worse, than Manhattan. Los Angeles and San Francisco have rent control laws.

Huge number of people living in a small amount of land = huge demand for living space.

Who are you, Yogi Berra?

"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

“It’s a matter of fairness,” said Jonathan L. Bing, an assemblyman who represents the Upper East Side. “We’re trying to give people a way to live out their lives in the neighborhoods they’ve been calling home for decades.”

Liberals just don't understand.

A matter of fairness? What liberal dogma do these grown men listen to as a young adult to make them believe this bullshit.

Fairness is letting the market dictate prices.

Rent control is one of the worst policies a city could enact and now these revisions are just going to compound the LAW OF ECONOMICS that price ceilings create: Increased demand.

Until these fuckheads read a book instead of listening to poor people plead for a handout, they're just going to fuck them over forever by killing supply, increasing demand, and perverse incentivizing shitty conditions for them to live in.

The shitty economy is really showing the true colors of these pandering politicians.

Land tennancy shouldn't be seen as a predatory financial opportunity. I think a landlord should be required to LIVE on or near the property, and people shouldn't be gouged like they are..NYC has become a campus not a place where a person making a decent salary can find his or her own apt and plan a lifetime in the City.

and people shouldn't be gouged like they are

There's no such thing as price gouging. A price is a price. If people pay it, it's what it's worth.

holy f*cking shit are they insane?

i also heard this morning that they wantto raise the income ap to $245K

wtf