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!

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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.