Paterson Pushes Rent Stabilization Reform

Governor Paterson introduced legislation yesterday that would overhaul the state's rent laws in order to "preserve affordable housing stock." The legislation is in response to the Stuy-Town lawsuit Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, in which tenants prevailed but were left uncertain of their legal rent. DHCR Commissioner Brian Lawlor said in a statement, "The legislation Governor Paterson is proposing will protect all rent regulated tenants in New York State for an additional eight years, provide incentives to owners to quickly provide refunds and rent reductions to tenants in apartments that were inappropriately decontrolled and also slow the deregulation of rent stabilized apartments."

The current laws expire next year, and call for apartments to be deregulated when a tenant's income exceeds $175,000 over two years and the rent exceeds $2,000 a month. Those rules were set in 1993, and the new legislation the rent threshold would be $3,000 a month and adjusted annually. The legislation also calls for different regulations on preferential rents, exit notices and individual apartment improvements.

However, the bill has been getting a lot of criticism from lawmakers and landlords, who say it won't make housing more affordable. Rent Stabilization Association president Joseph Strasburg told the Times, “If you can pay $3,000 a month in rent, you’re protecting people making in excess of $100,000 a year. We don’t understand that rationale." State Senator Liz Krueger said that allowing developers receiving J-51 tax breaks to charge market rents is contradictory to what the tax program was set up to accomplish, and said, “I don’t think that’s any kind of solution to the crisis of affordable housing." If the legislation passes, these laws would be put into effect through June 15, 2019.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jaya Saxena in News on May 27, 2010 12:46 PM

Comments [rss]

ritab

Crippledmark, under the current law your apt only gets unstabilized if the rent is $2000/month *and* you earn more than $175k (adjusted income on tax return) two years in a row.

crippledmark

As someone that lives in a rent controlled apartment making less than $35K per year (and still have to have a roommate to make it work), I can say that I'm eagerly looking forward to this passing.

grandzu

You are in no danger of exceeding $175,000 a year. The current law is more than enough in your case, so why would you be eagerly awaiting more regulation?

crippledmark

Because the current law dictates that apartments lose their stabilization when the rent goes over $2,000 which is just a few years away for me.

cool

you're asking for a $50 answer from a $35 guy

crippledmark

Sorry, stabilized, not controlled.

grandzu

All this will do is protect rich folk who have stabilized/control apartments.

What is the rationale for needing subsidized housing if your area making $175K a year?

ProfessorVonNostren

I love that photo...

Ritchie

me too!

John Clavis

NYC tried letting the "free market" decide. Do a search for "how the other half lives" to see how well that worked out.

Bottomless Chips

The USSR let communism decide. Do a search for post-Soviet Union architecture falling apart to see how well that worked out.

oofstar

if the ussr had spent their money on the people instead of their nuclear weapons program, it'd be a much different story.

Gotham Extremist

We New Yorkers let Bloomturd make all the rules, are you feeling how it is not working out?

Bottomless Chips

Re-electing a guy who changes term limits when he's in office is sickening. It's like playing a game with a guy who changes the rules halfway through. You want to punch him in the face. It's cheating.

And as we take more power away from the people (the free market) and give it to these guys, we have no one to blame but ourselves as things get mired in debt and inefficiencies.

SP

There is no such thing as a free market. Never has been, never will be. The idea of a free market is a lie, and a myth, perpetuated by the rich. In the absence of regulations set forth by a governing body, the wealthiest and most powerful are the ones who make the rules, and the rules always benefit them. Government can be corrupt, but the solution isn't to give up and just let the rich and powerful run things to the detriment of all others. The solution is to take greater responsibility in governance and to demand better government. This "libertarian" ideal of the so called free market is no more grounded in reality than the pie in the sky idealism of the communists' utopias, and is just as dangerous and detrimental to freedom, justice and equality.

John L

Yes, yes! Bravo!

Bottomless Chips

Creating price ceilings for the "poor" creates higher rents for the rest of us.

This is all corrupt as heck. Why should the government be involved with the pricing of anything? Let the market decide.

ozik

The building owners opt in to receive these tax benefits, right? Should I feel pity for them?, they thought it worth the money at the time.

Kojak

The free market, when it comes to NYC apartments, is irrational. There's a reason local gov't is so protective of tenants. Not to say there isn't abuse of the system, but its for the greater good.

Bottomless Chips

Wait a second...and the NYC RGB is completely rational? The politicians are rational and don't work in their own interests in any way?

The greatest good is to let two people (the owner and the tenant) decide on a contract without interference.