Straphanger Who Pulled Emergency Brake Comes Forward
Turkey Cruelty Ad Nixed By NBC
Would You Be Comfortable Locked On A Train With A Murderer?
Should MTV's Jersey Shore Be Cancelled?
Boy with Asperger's Syndrome Rides Subway for 11 Days
Last night, the Rent Guidelines Board voted to raise rents for rent-stabilized apartments: 3% for one-year leases and 6% for two-year leases. NY1 reports, "For tenants who have lived in their building for six or more years, the increase will be either $30 or $60, whichever is more."
While the rent hikes were relatively modest, many lawmakers and tenants begged for a rent freeze, given the economic climate. The rent hikes were only approved 5-4—according to the NY Post (which also had a graphic of previous hikes, pictured), "The surprise of the evening, though, was not that scores of screaming tenants drowned out most of the proceedings or that landlord and tenant representatives were constantly at odds, but that a rift had developed among the five public members who frequently act as a united coalition," when one member managed attempted to pass 2.5% and 4.5% increases, but fell short of getting a fifth vote. And while the meeting was noisy, once it was clear there would be no rent freeze, tenants taped their mouths as promised.
One landlord, whose tenant left without paying $9,000 in rent, told the Daily News, "I'm so deep into the process that another $5 or $10 isn't going to make it, but [the vote] does help a lot of these landlords who do have these $200 rents, $300 rents." The News also spoke to a tenant, an unemployed social worker who has lived in her Manhattan walk-up since 1971 and pays $735/month rent; she said of the rent hikes, "It's not unexpected - it's what they do every year. It's a farce."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
what's the point of a silent protest? those morons on the board dont give a damn. They'll do what they want whether you like it or not.
If anything...putting tape on your mouth saves them a headache from hearing protests that they drown out anyway.
who wins?
I am completely against rent hikes...especially now.
fuckin bloomberg douchebag and his minions.
Turdberg and Quinn, let's vote them both out.
You bring this up in every post. We get it already! Slush queen, blah blah blah...
What goes up:
Rent
Subway and train fares
Sales tax
What does not go up:
Wages (if you are fortunate enough to be employed)
What is reduced:
City services
The result:
Only the wealthy can continue to afford to live in NYC.
Or those who work for the government.
Or those who live off the government -- including the elderly, the disabled, the poor and the institutionalized.
The middle class continue to be pushed out of this city.
And that is not a healthy recipe for the future of New York City.
The rent hasn't gone up; the ceiling has gone up.
The market price for these apartments (even in a recession) would fetch much more than these people are paying---even with a hike.
The wealthy can only afford to live in NYC not because of greed, but because of stupid policies like these. The middle class can't afford to pay for themselves and the lower class, especially in a recession.
"For tenants who have lived in their building for six or more years, the increase will be either $30 or $60, whichever is more."
This will be hard to figure out.
yeah, let's freeze rent so landlords can forclose on buildings and unemployed social workers can enjoy their manhattan walkups.
You know what would happen if Rent Control and Stabilization were done away with?
Overall the rents would be lowered. Those controls were instituted during WWII to prevent the dispossession of our citizens by the new arrivals coming to the city to work. It should have been done away with years ago. Why should the rest of us subsidize the rents of others, who may be better off financially than most of us.
However this is part of the politics in this city. The compromise is to let the elderly stay with it, but not allow it (the controls) to be inherited.
Kudos. Unfortunately the people now feel entitled and call you racist or wealthy if you point out the flawed policy. And the politicians of course want to continue it and be seen as the guy for the blue collar worker.
It's just flat out immorality and greed.
I said the same things in the last post about this issue and commenters came down on me like a ton of bricks. It's widely accepted by economics professors right here in the city (ny post sucks but had a really good article about this) that the market will correct itself one the city ceases to interfere with it.
All markets seek equillibrium but try telling that to some greedy shitbag who's paying $600 a month on their UWS 2 bedroom. To them, Comrade Stalin should pay their bills so they can keep their summers in France.
I live in a rent stabilized apartment. At the start of this year, my rent consumed 34% of my take home pay. Between the rent increase and a company-wide paycut (better than being laid off, of course) at my job I will end the year with rent consuming 37% of my take home pay.
Meanwhile, nearly half the apartments in my building are market rate, so my landlord sure isn't in poverty.
The annual ritual of the tenant groups calling for a rent freeze and landlords saying they'll starve with anything less than 15% is a farce. I would like to see the tenant representatives propose a rent increase that the public members can approve, since they are the ones who actually decide.
The system is broken.
Landlords who are truly in dire straits financially have the option of raising rents legally through a hardship provision:
http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/Rent/FactSheets/orafac39.htm
Tenants have fewer options.
Get a better job.
They should also require renters to provide the same documentation for getting the low subsidized rents.
application...adequately substantiated by submission of...certified financial statements or federal income tax returns and other pertinent documents.
Let's stop the farce on the tenants side also.
If your rent stabilized just under $2,000, I can understand your pain but rather than hang on to it, why not go out into the market and see what you can get for less? If your rent stabilized around $1,000, then you are never going to be happy because you earn too little pay. Also remember that landlords are getting hit with 2007-2008 assessments that have driven up their taxes and the cost of fixing shit in NYC has never dropped. Yeah, they're making money, but it isn't massive profiteering, it's simple capitalism.
So when people who pay 50% or much less of market rate have their rents raised, I'm supposed to feel bad for them when they complain?
Cost of living arguments cannot be applied to situations in which market-based reality is not taken into consideration. Rent control at this point should be considered a gift that keeps rents from blowing up (like they do in reality), and anyone on it should always be dealing with modest increases rather than complaining that the increase in the cost of living means their rent should be frozen for eternity.
I second the argument that overall rents would go down for the middle class if there weren't a lucky few benefiting from this.
I sympathize with the fact that some people can't afford even a modest increase, but the fact remains that rent control is a sweet deal and anyone on it shouldn't think that they deserve an even greater handout than they're already receiving. If you can't afford it, move to South Florida like the other half of NY.
Planning for one's retirement and extended life expectancy is an individual responsibility, not one afforded to people by NYC and NY State.
There is no "market-based reality" in NYC. The real estate industry is heavily subsidized through all manner of tax breaks, zoning exemptions and tax-exempt financing.
yep, and now Bloomberg and quinn are bailing out the developers by placing homeless people in the vacant apartment at overpriced rates.
Yeah, but this is a direct variable: the slotting/price ceilings of rents.
whoa this is getting heavy doc
The min raise for 1 and 2 years is a good thing. Wonder why they just start doing it since last year. Should have been done from the start.
A 15% raise for a rent of 300 is still not much.
As alphabeta says, there is no such thing as a free market, especially as far as real estate and rents are concerned. The real solution is to impose stabilization on ALL rental apartments.
Why don't we place price controls on everything?
No sympathy for folks with rent control who see increases. I have always paid market-rate rents, and now I pay a mortgage in downtown Brooklyn. Make more money, or move to Buffalo.
No sympathy for folks with rent control who see increases. I have always paid market-rate rents, and now I pay a mortgage in downtown Brooklyn. Make more money, or move to Buffalo.
According to the rent guidelines board 2009 reports, the median household income for a renter in NYC is $36,000. The median monthly rent for an apartment is $974. If figure taxes eat up 1/3 of income, then take home pay would be $23,760 for a median household. If that household is paying median rent ($11,688 annually) that means that he/she/they are spending 49% of take-home pay on rent.
This is unsustainable. People can move away due to the high cost, and they do. The trend is toward a city where the middle class is priced out. But people who live here, pay taxes and vote have the right to ask that the current Rube Goldberg approach to housing policy that currently spreads costs and benefits haphazardly be changed to something sustainable that seeks to retain the people who live here rather than subsidize the demise of the middle class through the tax code. We need fresh thinking.
i don't understand at all why anti-rent control/stabilization advocates believe landlords will make more apartments more affordable if there is no more regulation? the absence of regulation creates more leeway for greed.
You're absolutely right but it will be a supply/demand cycle which will drive up rents in the hottest neighborhoods while lowering them in areas that have cooled off or are undesirable to begin with. Rents in the Meatpacking District might soar while those in Williamsburg could fall. Overall, the market would reward areas where crime and the quality of life are much better and punish greedy landlords in rotten neighborhoods that have tried to fleece their tennants. A lot of retirees that live in rent-controlled apartments would either have to pony up like the rest of us or leave. You can't please everyone, which city would you like? The one that supports an aging population that sucks the lifeblood and energy out of NYC, or a younger, more productive population that works hard, plays hard, and pays their taxes?
"By a similarly narrow 5-4 vote, the board also imposed minimum hikes of $30 and $60 for low-rent tenants in place for at least six years."
Can someone explain this? Is this in addition to 3% and 6%?
Not in addition. If someone's rent is say, $800 a month, a 3% increase would be $24. But with the minimum increase, no increase can be less than $30 for a one year lease or $60 for a two year lease. Anyone with a rent of $1000 or more just pays the percentage increase. They did not set a maximum increase so some people will see their rents go up quite a bit.