AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Rihanna's Random Airport Search
Tenant activists at last year's Rent Guidelines Board vote. (Jen Chung/Gothamist)
But this year's primal scream therapy may be substituted by one of those contemptuous silent protests; some tenant activists say they'll to tape their mouths shut during the meeting to underscore the board’s disregard for their protestation. Tenants and some government officials are calling for a rent freeze this year due to the economy, something the board has never done since it was established in 1969. City Councilman Bill de Blasio tells the Times, "I think it's time to talk about extraordinary measures. If we can do bank bailouts and other government actions we never would have dreamed of, we certainly should talk about freezing rent increases."
Board member Magda Cruz is fed up with the noisy activists, telling the News, "It is such an offense and assault, almost, to the work that we have done [to] be subjected to that kind of abuse by the audience." To which tenant organizer Michael McKee retorts, "People scream and holler because they're disgusted at the corrupt process that this entire system represents. The whole process is fixed. I don't expect any kind of fairness from these people, because they are, to a person, anti-rent regulation." Last year, the board approved its highest set of allowable rent increases since 1989—4.5 percent on one-year leases and 8.5 percent on two-year leases.
Meanwhile, who will speak out for the landlords? For the first time since 1997, the Rent Stabilization Association, which represents thousands of landlords of rent-stabilized apartments, has produced an ad campaign defending their point of view. Five radio spots feature testimonials from landlords of small buildings, who argue that because property taxes and water rates have gone up, they have no choice but to raise the rent accordingly. About 27 percent of NYC's rent-stabilized apartments are in buildings with 19 or fewer units.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"landlords of small buildings, who argue that because property taxes and water rates have gone up, they have no choice but to raise the rent accordingly."
sigh, same old bullshit. if the economy or your expenses don't allow you to make the kind of money you want (or think you're entitled to), find a new line of work. 'being a landlord' isn't as vital a human need as 'having a place to live'.
where would you live then if there weren't small landlords? public housing or one of those huge apartment buildings?
i'm not saying that there would be no small landlords... just landlords willing to make what the market will bear for their services (kinda like every other business).
Because living in a foreclosed building is so much better than having an evil landlord! Pray tell exactly what is your solution, if landlords really can't cover their expenses with rent?
your comment makes no sense.
These people seem to fail to realize that while they whine and cry for their cheap-ass 70's era rent for their two and three bedroom apartments they are driving up the rent for every other middle class person around them. Essentially they are asking their neighbors to continue subsidizing their rent.
"Rent regulations have nothing to do with income - it's just happenstance that you live in one of those buildings," he said. "It's just a serendipitous system." More than that, he said, the system does nothing to curb the housing emergency.
"We've had the regulations in the city since World War II, and they've done absolutely nothing to ease what is known as the housing crisis," he said.
Rent regulation bills are popular with lawmakers because they sound good to voters, most of whom are renters, said Freund. But if renters - or their elected officials - understood the economics behind the price controls, maybe they wouldn't vote for them.
"The people who do these housing vacancy studies every few years are not economists," Professor Block said. "And if they are, they're traitors."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02142009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/lawmakers_plan_to_revive_rent_stabilizat_155142.htm?&page=1
You're thinking of rent controlled as opposed to rent stabilized.
"These people seem to fail to realize that while they whine and cry for their cheap-ass 70's era rent for their two and three bedroom apartments they are driving up the rent for every other middle class person around them. Essentially they are asking their neighbors to continue subsidizing their rent."
that's same nonsensical arguments insurance companies use when they're using fraud as an excuse to raise premiums or when retailers use shoplifting as an excuse to raise prices - it mistakenly leaves greed out of the equation.
It's about economics. The system is totally inconsistent and, until they do something about it, whether that means actually looking into who is benefitting from these rents (ie. the elderly, poor people, middle class families. Not wealthy able bodied 20 somethings that inherited the apartment from their parents- yes, they are allowed to do that only once- and lawyers making 400K a year and living in a 2500 dollar a month three bedroom) or doing away with the system all together and allowing for the market to correct itself, they are prepetuating the housing crisis. The whole system needs an overhaul because all it does right now is screw up the housing market.
do you know why a family of six pays $1900/month to live in a tiny 2-bedroom apartment in Far Rockaway,Queens while a 75 year old retired public school teacher with a annual gross income of over $40,000 pays $650 to live in 6 room apartment on west 85th street?
rent control is your answer. rent control is a way to make the playing field uneven for all renters.
when you watch the news tonight and see the tenants protesting,see how many are over age 62,
why are they protesting? if they are poor, they can easily get their rents frozen under the city's SCRIE program.
they are not poor,they have great deals that have kept their rents laughably low for generations.
In Chelsea, there is a homeless shelter for the elderly who were driven out of their apartments because of these greedy landlords.
Another problem is rent stabilized apartments without regard for changed personal situations. There are too many cases of elderly couples in a multi-bedroom apartments because the children grew up and moved out decades ago. There is no system of forcing them into smaller units so new families can have the same opportunities like they did.
please be sure to post back when your parents get kicked out of the apartment that they've lived in - and raised you in - for 40 years. i'll be curious to hear whether you'll still be as cavalier with your childhood home.
"please be sure to post back when your parents get kicked out of the apartment that they've lived in - and raised you in - for 40 years."
A-freakin'-men. Rent stabilization helps to protect people who have made a home in one place for many years. In my building I have a few older people that have lived in the building for 30+ years. They have a sense of responsibility toward the building and want to keep it a decent place to live.
Rent control and stabilization controls were created because of a WW2 housing shortage. They are still in place because there isn't enough to go around at affordable prices. Shouldn't the ones who got so much for so long take less for the ones who need more now? I'm thinking of the doubled up families with kids who need room today. To do nothing means deciding to leave a inexpensive 4 bedroom to an elderly couple instead.
what's wrong with rent stabilization?
it's just another way to protect tenants like usury laws are used to protect lenders. it just makes sure one's rent won't go up substantially. increases should be reasonable.
these laws protect everyone. Let's raise the RS cap while we are at it.
huh? no one forces anyone to live in their apartment. if the market cant bear the rent, it stays vacant. this is how it works everywhere else but here. if the person wants stability they should move and own where they can afford. this system does nothing but make it expensive for everyone but the few that basically won the housing lottery.
except we are dealing with people's lives here.
is the housing lottery the same as the born with privilege lottery? the american dream is still a dream.
perhaps, but no one has the right for someone else to subsidize their lifestyle, especially for the rest of their lives.
How are you subsidizing their rents? that makes no sense. What you are paying for is the shelters that housed all these people evicted from their apartments by greedy landlords. what do you want the elderly to do? get a job? perhaps you need to get a heart.
"just landlords willing to make what the market will bear for their services (kinda like every other business)."
Except unlike every other business, you can't CHARGE what the market will bear. Beyond that, tenants are bitching about increases that don't come close to matching the rate of inflation. If your food costs 5% more then it did last year, why wouldn't your rent?
In all honesty, I'm not really against rent stabilization - if the NY Housing Court was even remotely functional in enforcement. As it is, this is a stupid system catering to stupid people at the expense of everyone who doesn't want to be a slumlord.
My rent only went up 1.8% this year. I would be pissed if the city mandated that I had to pay 4.5% more seeing as my management company gave me a much better deal.
The city doesn't mandate what you have to pay, it mandates what a landlord can charge. And keep in mind that if you are anywhere near market rate, 4.5% is probably a meaningful amount of money, whereas if you are in a $750/month apartment...
Time to end this stabilization bullshit once and for all. Let the market determine the rents and if we need to subsidize rents for specific groups, then let's make that political decision separately.
Brilliant idea, free market with no intervention, what a great idea. Your McCain McSame ideas are so rejuvenating.
Even animal rights activists could attempt to qualify for subidized rents, but that would be a political decision with the support of a majority of the people. Make your case. Then again, no wonder you support socialized rent controls.
Why should I be punished because I got here before you and locked in a good rate?
Rent stabilization keeps people in the city: paying taxes, spending money and contributing to the life of the city.
If it weren't for rent stabilization the Village would be made up entirely of self-entitled students whose parents pay their rent. You want Muffy walking down Christopher Street whining that her Chemistry teacher hates her?
The purpose of rent stabalization should not be some kind of class based urban planning. The idea that you are better than other people and therfore deserve to pay less than them is kind of apalling and really hurts your argument
"The purpose of rent stabalization should not be some kind of class based urban planning."
So I guess you agree with the Communist a few responses up that an apartment should be taken from an empty nest couple and given to a family?
I never said I was better than anyone else, just lucky. Some of you are really bitter for being so young. I got my rent stabilized one bedroom in the early 90s. At the time, the man living next door who had the same floorplan as me was paying $150 per month because he had live there since the 1950s. I wasn't bitter about it, I just though "you lucky dog."
BTW Clarice, stfu. If you had seen NYC years ago, you'd understand. There is no originality here anymore. I feel sorry for you because you have to shop at Old Navy while I got to experience Canal Jeans, Unique Clothing Warehouse and all those other wonderful stores that were pushed out of SoHo.
Cool, way to make a public discussion into a string of personal attacks on people you know absolutely nothing about. But for the record, I'm a professional artist that actually makes a living at what I do. So, young as I may be, I do know something about the cultural life of this city and value what we have here and I make my contribution to the local culure everyday. Thanks for the advice Pops, but I don't really need a lecture from an anynonomus blog commenter. And, for the record, I remember Canal Jeans, too. If that's your claim to cultural superiotity that's kinda sad. You win, okay?
Also, if you think that there's no originality here, you're probably not looking hard enough. You're right. It's not in SoHo anymore.
"So I guess you agree with the Communist a few responses up that an apartment should be taken from an empty nest couple and given to a family?"
I can't even imagine how you got that from my post. You're the one talking about who is more entitled to reside in certain neighborhoods.
"I never said I was better than anyone else, just lucky"
Yeah, you did. You said that if rent stabilized people (like you) were forced to pay more for their apartments than the apartments would go to undesirables like Muffy. The implication is that you are better than other people and thus deserve to be coddled with reduced rent.
How do I know Muffy isn't a better neighbor and person than you are? I don't see Muffy bashing you around. I've never been afraid a mugger named Muffy is going to shoot me, someday. And Muffy is more fun to say than Gothampc.
Congrats. You won the 1970's housing lottery. You sound like a cranky old fart that doesn't like young people trying to make a life and an economic contribution in the city. I am so tired of hearing nasty old people with their tired old sentiment of "New York was only real in the 70's/80's..." Shut up, already. Youth and energy is the lifeblood of any city. Quit your limousine liberal whining and give the next gerneration a shot at affordable housing.
There is absolutely no economic justification for rent control or rent stabilization...none.
It absolutely increases prices for the rest of the city, and absolutely everyone who isn't in a rent controlled or rent stabilized apartment is subsidizing those who are...on the whole, we are collectively worse off.
You may not want to hear it, but thats the facts, jack.
you see, here's the funny thing about "facts", "jack": they need to be substantiated. otherwise it's just some guy on a messageboard talking out of his ass.
You mean like you're doing? Funny, I don't see any substantiated facts in any of your posts in this thread...
i don't think i ever proclaimed anything as a 'fact' - i offered up my opinion on the business of being a landlord.
way to deflect, by the way.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html
"Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”1 Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare state, on the “left.” Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.”
"pwn3d", as the kids say
Let's not cry for the landlord in this situation either. the landlord originally bought the building with rent stabilzed tenants and because of such, got a lower deal on their purchase. they bought low, then want to remove rent stabilzed tenants to maximize profits.
Agreed. That said, purchase price does not reflect fluctuations in taxes, utilities, or anything else that a landlord may need (or want) to pass on to tenants. While I know most landlords would like to remove rent stabilized tenants, what they would like realistically is to have their costs recognized and accounted for.
I agreed that the city council's property tax rates and their silence on the water hike rates (14%) did not help matters at all.
Rent controlled apartments comprise 2% of the NYC housing stock. No doubt there is some measured effect to prices on non-regulated housing. That said, the politics of the matter seem to accept that 2% as an acceptable social cost when weighed against the political cost of going cold turkey.
Rent-stabilization is the real source of artificial housing costs. It brings in just enough money to keep most landlords from keeling over, yet still not enough to be part of the 'natural' demand. Many go to the middle-class we're trying to retain, but a not-insignificant amount go to people who could otherwise afford the going market price. Landlords prefer them because they rarely miss rent payments and are much more likely to displace sooner than the middle-class family originally intended to be the programs' recipients.
It's just not working out this way, because it's not right that renters get to treat their lease as an asset. I don't know what the answer is to maintain the city's healthy socioeconomic mix. I think it's a good goal, one worth pursuing even at the expense of some capital mobility. Annex West New York and Newark in exchange for Staten Island? A mass expansion of the subway system? Regrid southeastern Brooklyn and Queens like 1800's Manhattan, instituting eminent domain and land reform at an unprecedented scale? Fill in the Harlem River between Brooklyn and Manhattan?
We need more land for middling-density development, closer to the center, or we need an extended and faster subway system. The subway system is the best way to shrink distances.
yes we need to expand metro systems but subways in NYC are no longer possible to build without waiting 30 years and spending 5 billion dollars... its just unreal...
we need to start thinking about raised subway systems or trolley system...
the bus system doesnt work within manhattan its too slow and stops to much (going to the bronx,queens and brooklyn still work for buses)
in the end we need to reclaim most of brooklyn warehouses and start building middle income living not a 2 bedroom at 800 squarefeet either... we need to go back to the 1920's-1960's when a 2 bedroom was 1200 squarefeet and a 3 bedroom was 1800 and rent should be capped at 2000k (which would be affordable to a working class family - When the children are in school.. when they're young and babies you need a rent of 1400$ so you can have a stay at home parent.
thats how it should be!