http://www.bensonhurstbean.com...

This thread is likely dead at this point -- but I'll comment anyways.  I agree with the basic idea behind rent stabilization -- when you're dealing with peoples' homes, you don't want out-of-control markets to leave renters at the whims of landlords.  But...

It has to be a balance -- property rights have to be respected at least a little bit.  And they're often not -- after rent stabilization, some apartments are basically taken from their owner and given to a third party.  And that's not fair.  Take this one for an example: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale... 

Maintenance and taxes each month are $2735.  Maximum rent is $2385.  That means that the "owner" owns nothing more than the privilege of having to keep up the property (as his or her expense) and effectively subsidizing the renter to the tune of $350 each month.  A landlord should have at least the possibility of earning money from the property -- here, the only question is how much the owner will lose each month, for the benefit of the tenant.  In that situation, how can you possibly claim that the "owner" owns anything at all?

I'm not sure what the owner can do in that situation -- but if there's no way to seek an increased rent...then there damned well ought to be.  Otherwise, the property effectively just belongs to the tenant -- and all the owner owns is the hope that the tenant will someday die or leave.

If landlord is REALLY...HONESTLY losing money and not earning, s/he is entitled to a hardship increase under Rent Stabilization law.

Good point -- but there's still a problem...no one uses that option.  So why not?

One answer, I suspect, is that the standard for getting a hardship (which you describe in capital letters for good reason) is so onerous -- apparently less than 1% are approved.  (In one study, they could identify only a single such approval in a year.)  It's basically a waste of time to even try.

Now, maybe the reason for THAT is that owners aren't really losing money -- but some clearly are.  And...it strikes me as odd that out of a universe of people who go to all the trouble of trying to seek a hardship, only 1% would be qualified.  I suspect that it's just a case where a remedy is theoretically available -- but realistically not.

So maybe that's the fix -- you're offering a decent remedy, but it's so theoretical and impossible that it may as well not exist.  So maybe we just need to make that remedy realistic, rather than theoretical.

The "rest of society" doesn't pay for benefits of rent stabilized tenants.  Landlords just use that as an excuse - a scapegoat, like I said.  Rent Stabilization (if it were actually complied with) eases the burden on society because, like I said, a lot of these people could not afford market rents and would end up in a shelter system or, if they are lucky, REAL subsidized housing - both costing much more money for taxpayers.

And a lot (if not most) rent stabilized tenants would not be able to "take their business elsewhere" if on;y market-rates were available.  And RS actually PROTECTS tenants' rights, as far as how they are treated by landlords.  Landlord's in lower income neighborhoods tend to treat tenants like crap when they can get away with it.

Many people, plain and simply, would not be able to afford to live in market rate housing.  New York needs (and all benefit from) lower income workers.  Otherwise, the price for goods and services would increase dramatically.  So everybody would pay for it, regardless.

And the nothing "artificially low" about the housing supply.  Like I said, new buildings aren't required to be subject to rent stabilization.  It's pre 1974.  New developers may opt-in to RS in return for tax breaks ad subsidies that end up paying for half of their building but they can still charge luxury rent, albeit stabilized.

>>Many people, plain and simply, would not be able to afford to live in market rate housing.

No, they could.. just perhaps not in the neighborhood of their choice, and to that, I say, "cry me a river."

Rent stabilization is just another form of welfare.

[Note: The above comment said something like "This is just another welfare program" before it was removed.]

Sadly, it isn't. Most welfare programs target the neediest and are paid for by the most fortunate. Rent control and stabilization exhibit no such merits.

Rent Stabilization only affects buildings (with 6 or more units) that were built before '74.

The only reason a new building would be subject to rent stabilization would be if the owner/developer received sweet tax breaks and subsidies.  Even then, they could still charge whatever they want (even luxury prices) for the initial rent.

Everybody has a right to live somewhere.  And New Yorkers have a right to not be kicked out of the city because of an influx of hipsters.  True, our nation was built on such a cold-hearted, greedy way of thinking (after all, all of the land (including new york) rightfully belongs to native americans, anyway.  Housing in NYC is a scarce resource and shouldn't be profiteered (especially when the land was ripped off in the first place).

Housing in NYC is not scarce. Where -you- want to live may be scarce, but that's not my problem.

Like I said, you must live in a totally different world with different circumstances.  If you've got the funds - sure it's probably easy to find a place.  But when your resources are very limited...it's a different story - especially when more and more "haves" are coming here, crowding out the "have nots."

There are tons of empty lots in New York City, and also building built up much less than zoning allows.

Why? Because it doesn't make economic sense for a developer/owner. And yet, the vacancy rate in New York is among the lowest in the county.

THAT is a PERFECT example of the distortion of the market that is caused by rent-stabilization.

Oh bullsh*t. This isn't about living somewhere. Rent stabilization has ZERO impact in a neighborhood like
Brownsville, East New York, etc.. I would expect, the majority of
neighborhoods in New York.

You don't want to live there? Well why is that my problem. Get a 2nd
job, save your money, move where you do want, or buy that steak. But
explain to me, why YOU can buy a steak, or take a trip to Disneyworld,
because you save your money on rent, but I have to eat hamburger and go
to Coney Island because I'm paying more than you?

You statements show that you must be living in a completely different world than the people who most need Rent Stabilization Laws.  lol  Lucky you..

And actually, stabilization DOES have a big impact for places like Brownsville and ENY (at least in buildings with 6 or more units).  Rent Stabilization ensure that landlord's maintain the premises.  RS makes sure that the landlord doesn't double the rent out of nowhere just because he feels like it.  RS ensures that the landlord won't be able to just easily kick people out of there homes when the greedy and heartless are looking for more neighborhoods to gentrify.

No. No. No.  The '69 law, which was/is a weaker form than the Rent Control Laws (which was being phased out), was only supposed to be temporary, in that an apartment was DECONTROLLED when the tenant moved out.  THIS DID NOT WORK,  Hence, the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 put the apartments back into Rent Stabilization.  That's why they called it the EMERGENCY Tenant Protection Act.  Because an EMERGENCY ensued as the apartments went into "free market."

I think you are incorrect - it' was called "Emergency" because a housing crisis existed at the immediate end of WW II. It is only supposed to be in effect when the vacancy rate is below a certain amount (something like <3%, I'm too lazy to Google it).

Ironically though, the law has had the effect of keeping the vacancy rate low, as people in stabilized apartments don't want to move. It also has the effect of making apartments more expensive for a comparable apartment, as there is less stock.

And Rent Stabilization isn't keeping vacancy low.  For one thing, people move in and out of stabilized apartments all the time.  And moving in and out doesn't increase the vacancy rate - there are still the same amount of people and the same amount of apartments.  It just creates a game of musical chairs.

And what's wrong with long term tenants staying in their stabilized apartments?  They are the ones who helped make New York such a great place.  They shouldn't be priced out of the city just because a bunch of others want to flock to the city and enjoy what was created by the blood sweat and tears of people who can't afford luxury rents.  Morals should come into play, as well.

No one has an inalienable right to live anywhere, any more than I have a right to eat steak every day.

You are incorrect.  It's called the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974.  WWII was way before that.  You are talking about Rent Control Laws.  There are only a few Rent Control apartments left - filled with very old people.  Rent Stabilization is not the same as Rent Control.  The myth of people paying $300 a month for a rent stabilized apartment isn't true.  Even stabilized rents are too high for many - $1500 plus, often.  In a lot of cases, in places like the Bronx, the landlord rents the apartment for a rate that is cheaper than the stabilized rent, anyway.  Stabilized doesn't mean static.  The rents go up plenty.