Rent Control Questions

[tone99loc]

I'm interested in pursuing a career studying the economics of rent control. Can any savy New Yorkers on this forum clue me in to the history of rent control in NYC, the agency responsible for monitoring and administrating it, or any other related topics you deem worthy. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

[Kris]

http://forums.wirednewyork.com/viewtopic.php?t=572

http://forums.wirednewyork.com/viewtopic.php?t=2027

[TonyO]

Interesting read...

December 5, 2005 Edition

N.Y. Rent Laws Enabling Out-of-Town Luxury

BY DAVID LOMBINO - Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 5, 2005
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/23919

Thousands of New Yorkers, taking advantage of rent-stabilization laws designed to keep middle-class New Yorkers in the city, are using the money they are saving on rent to buy weekend or vacation homes outside New York in places such as Florida, Connecticut, and even Switzerland.

A New York Sun investigation disclosed these examples of New Yorkers living perfectly legally in rent-stabilized apartments while owning weekend or vacation homes:

* A doctor who specializes in weight loss, Howard Shapiro, lives in a two-bedroom rent-stabilized apartment overlooking Central Park and owns a house in West Palm Beach, Fla., that was assessed at nearly $1 million, according to Florida tax records.

* William and Mada Hapworth, both doctors, have a three-bedroom rent-stabilized apartment on Central Park South with park views. They also own a Norwalk, Conn., home on Long Island Sound that is assessed at more than $1.6 million.

* Ruth Golbin, a retiree, lives in a rent-stabilized two-bedroom apartment and also owns a Key Biscayne, Fla., condominium assessed at more than $520,000. A Dade County employee in the Department of Building and Zoning, Asela Martell-Molina, said the condominium, located in the Towers of Key Biscayne, would sell for about $1 million.

* Andreas Scott-Hansen, retired from the shipping business, and his wife, Beatrice, have lived in the same rent-stabilized Fifth Avenue apartment, overlooking Central Park, for 37 years. They have owned two houses in Ridgefield, Conn., most recently a 2,600-square-foot home assessed at $825,000.

* One man who lives in a rent-stabilized apartment with views of Central Park said he flies to Switzerland once a month to stay in his $1 million, three-bedroom house outside Geneva.

Rent regulation in New York began in 1947, in part to relieve a historic housing shortage and to maintain diversity in New York City's neighborhoods. There are now 867,697 rent-stabilized apartments and 59,324 rent controlled apartments in the five boroughs, roughly half the city's total rental housing stock, according to the state Department of Housing and Community Renewal. Rent increases for those apartments are set annually by a government board. Living in a rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartment and owning a second home is legal, and there is no database of people who fall into that category.

It is illegal for a tenant to occupy a rent-stabilized or -controlled apartment if it is not their primary residence. Because the city and state do not monitor these occurrences, a cottage industry of attorneys, brokers, private investigators, and buyout specialists has grown to fill the niche. Most of the evidence of rent-regulated tenants who own second homes is unearthed in the recurring effort of owners to oust tenants who live elsewhere and sublet their rent-regulated apartments or rent them out as short-term hotel rooms.

A real estate attorney for Greenberg Traurig, Steven Kirkpatrick, said, "Somebody can own a second home, a $2 [million] or $3 million dollar home, use it two or three days a week, and technically it is not their primary residence."

John Gilbert, a top executive at Rudin Management, a real estate company with a portfolio that includes rent-regulated apartments, said there are "thousands of examples of people who live in stabilized housing and have second homes."

"The fact that you are able to pay below-market rents, you are obviously much more able, with greater disposable income, to purchase second homes, a vacation home, a ski house, or a house at the beach," said Mr. Gilbert, who is the former president of the Rent Stabilization Association, a landlords group that opposes rent-control laws.

Those few tenants who were willing to discuss their deals defended their practices.

Ms. Scott-Hansen acknowledged to the Sun that the below-market rent on her rent-stabilized apartment seems "like a deal," but she added, "It's fair. I'm not going to move out because I have another house. I'm sure you wouldn't either."

An editor, Kenneth Magill, and his spouse, Ludmila, who works in advertising, reside during the week in a rent stabilized two-bedroom apartment in northern Manhattan, and on the weekends drive up to their converted three bedroom house in upstate New York. The couple decided to purchase their upstate home and stay in their rent-stabilized apartment rather than buy another Manhattan apartment.

They bought the house for $115,000 in 2003, and have since spent an additional $50,000 on landscaping, an added bedroom, and a hot tub. Mr. Magill is a former employee of the Sun. Now they pay about $1,000 a month in rent for their city apartment and about $900 a month on the mortgage for their upstate home.

"For the cost of keeping the elevators running in a Midtown co-op, I have a house upstate," Mr. Magill said. "I'm personally opposed to rent-control and -stabilization, but I didn't make the rules, and I have to do what's best for me and my family."

The man who shuttles once a month between Manhattan and his house in Switzerland would speak only on condition of anonymity. He said his New York landlord has tried to oust him but has failed because no laws are being broken. "That's the law in New York. If the law changes I will have to pay more. In the meantime, I'm going to take advantage of it," he said, asking, "Why should I feel guilty?"

New York's rent regulation laws are widely known as among the most sweeping in the country, and they have been a frequent lightning rod for controversy.

In 1997, the state Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, attempted to end the city's rent regulations. He received death threats, encountered busloads of protesters, and had an unexplained fire in one of his district offices.

Under high-rent vacancy decontrol, established in 1994, a landlord is permitted to charge market rate for a regulated apartment if its rent rises above $2,000 and it becomes vacant. Many argue the city's entire stock of rent-stabilized and -controlled apartments will eventually be deregulated through this provision, although it may take decades to do so.

The 1994 law also established luxury decontrol, which prompts deregulation if a stabilized apartment's rent is more than $2,000 and its occupants' income is $250,000 for at least two years in row. In 1997, as the result of a deal brokered by Mr. Bruno, that income threshold was lowered to $175,000.

Still, under a loophole, a tenant who consistently earns more than $175,000 a year can legally live in a rent-stabilized apartment if its rent is less than $2,000 a month.

The associate director of New York State Tenants and Neighbors, a tenant advocacy group, Michael McKee, said that it was "very rare" for a wealthy family to occupy a rent-regulated apartment. "The income of a tenant is and should be irrelevant," Mr. McKee said. "Many people start out in a rent-regulated apartment when they are making less money, and they make more over time. Some people think they should be forced to move. I disagree with that," he said.

"The rent regulation system is constantly under attack. If you want to talk about people who have money, talk about landlords - these are some of the richest people on the planet, and they are certainly not losing money on rent stabilized apartments," Mr. McKee said.

Mr. Bruno told the Sun that further reform of rent stabilization and rent control is unlikely until 2011, when the current law expires. "When we did the luxury decontrol, there were others who were bucking, kicking, and screaming all the way," Mr. Bruno said.

Nevertheless, he said that his legislative effort led to the deregulation of at least 20,000 apartments that were occupied by wealthy residents.

A spokesman for the state Department of Housing and Community Renewal said 1,900 certified apartments have been deregulated since 1997 because of luxury decontrol.

Mr. McKee, the tenant advocate, said that many of those units were deregulated incorrectly, because tenants failed to submit paperwork, or to the detriment of poor tenants that needed the below-market rents.

Landlords who are watching the real estate market and who now must bear higher fuel and insurance costs say they are tired of subsidizing their tenants' vacation homes.

A veteran New York building owner and attorney, Maria Sachs, said that some owners of buildings with rent-stabilized apartments "bear this burden of supporting someone who is better off than they are."

"It is an irrational system of distribution on the benefit side, in terms of who gets the apartments, and on the other side - the imposition of the costs on the landlord," Ms. Sachs said. "The person who can afford the second house isn't really in need."

An agent who is paid by landlords to broker buyouts with tenants in rent-regulated apartments, Michael Grabow, said he receives frequent complaints from owners about tenants with second homes. "I tell them, you may not like this law, but it's the law," Mr. Grabow said. "Tenants who pay $450 a month are accumulating a lot of money. They want a place in the Adirondacks, and there is not a thing you can do about it. They get angry, but I tell them, 'It's not the tenants' fault. Be angry at the system.'"

In October, Mayor Bloomberg outlined his administration's expanded second-term housing plan to build or preserve 165,000 units for low-and moderate-income New Yorkers by 2013. The cost of the 10-year plan, from 2003 to 2013, is about $7.5 billion. Both candidates in the recent mayoral election spoke of the need for more "affordable housing" in the city and vowed to create new units to be set aside at below-market prices.

Mr. Gilbert, of Rudin Management, said that the private sector would bear more of the cost of building new housing if rent regulation is abolished or phased out at a quicker pace.

"If there is an upside for investors and developers, they will build. If you cap their profits with rent stabilization, they won't build," he said. "There will always be a need for the government to meet the needs of the housing segment that the private sector can't meet. But you would have less of a need if you had more of a free market."

[vc10]

Not surprising. There's nothing fair about rent control/stabilization. The good news is that only half the city rentals are now under such restrictions, more drop out all the time, and tons of market rate stuff is being built all the time, plus a lot of stuff that's under stabilization will naturally fall out because the buildings were built under 12-year stabilization deals.

So it gradually becomes more and more politically feasible to demolish the whole rotten system.


Interesting read...

December 5, 2005 Edition

N.Y. Rent Laws Enabling Out-of-Town Luxury

BY DAVID LOMBINO - Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 5, 2005
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/23919

[lofter1]

Wow - Almost a dozen examples out of almost a million rent stabilized / controlled apartments (hardly any of which lists the amount of rent paid) !!

New [stupid] Rule:

Make all laws based upon less than .00002 % of those involved (even using the "thousands" cited, it still comes to ~ 0.5 %).
Better Rule:

Go after those who are BREAKNG the law, rather than using time / energy / resources to punish those who abide by the law.

[MrSpice]

Rent Control is one of the most ridiculous systems out there. It's a socialist framework in the middle of the financial and market capital of the world. The price for the apartment should be based on supply and demand. And this situation when so many people live in upscale and luxury apartments at the fraction of the cost only because they happened to be in the right place at the right time many years ago is unfair and wrong on all counts.

[lofter1]

If the supply for all these "market rate" rental apartments is so great then why are there not hundreds of thousands of market-rate rentals being built?

Don't developers believe in supply & demand?

Build them and they will come!!

Rent Stabilization laws were enacted due to a "housing crisis" (per legislative language) and said laws will CEASE to exist when the vacancy rate goes over 5% -- something that has failed to happen in NYC for the past 30 + years.

[stache]

As an example, in my building, there are about 250 units, 2 are still controlled and a few are still stabelized (including me). I have lived here for about 15 years and my apt. is about $400 below market rate. This is hardly a bargain hunters dream, but it's still a good rate for me for the time being. Rent controlled people in many cases are now paying more than stabelized people because of upkeep and fuel surcharges. Further, a second home is pretty common among the middle class, especially for Europeans, and the prices quoted in the article for second homes are hardly astronomical. A million dollars doesn't go very far in densely populated areas these days.

[Ninjahedge]

The point is that rent control was originally established to try to help people have a home. Not to help people afford a vacation home.

No matter how cheap or expensive that second home is, if you have enough to afford a second home, why are you in a rent controlled place?


I think that things like stabilization are needed as a buffer for things like the real estate bubble we just experienced, but at the same time it is difficult for a lot of landlords to afford keeping their places going when they cannot charge for the expenses directly...


Maybe a change needs to be put in the laws that have a few more outs in them. Things such as:

1. Anyone earning more than a certan ammount, PERIOD.
2. Anyone owning a house above a certain market value within a certain radius of the city, and within another bracket anywhere else (commuting concerns verses vacation home)
3. Have an auditable expense statement dividing certain costs between the tenants and the landlord. The landlord DOES own the place, but it is hard to put the burden of maintainance all on the owner, especially if teh tenants do not respect the property.
4. Have a rate of increase that does not need state legislation every 3 years, such as %% above state declared inflation rates, etc etc.

And here is a doozy:

5. If anyone is no longer elegible for the rent controled place, the landlord does not get to charge them what he wants, but needs to take another tenant in at that price. Until then, the current resident is still entitled to live there at the previous rent. ALSO, they get at least 30 days to relocate once another tenant is found.


We need to make it so that people do not take advantage of the system. That goes for both sides though....

[vc10]

But rent control is a prime cause of Nimbyism because those that get a good deal never move. They become highly invested in their neighborhood and that causes them to be very sensitive to any changes. And it's people like this who lobby for downzoning and design all the hoops that builders have to go through to build anything in this city, and that puts a tight noose on supply.

And then many of these same people moan about the lack of affordable housing. Hey, remove a few constraints on supply, and you'll see a lot more built. It takes forever to get anything done here.

You could remove rent control tomorrow and the biggest effect would be that people currently able to afford Manhattan might have to settle for Jersey, or Long Island or Queens. Guess what? That's not a tragedy. Some people can't afford a Mercedes either, we don't artificially constrain the price of those...


If the supply for all these "market rate" rental apartments is so great then why are there not hundreds of thousands of market-rate rentals being built?

Don't developers believe in supply & demand?

Build them and they will come!!

Rent Stabilization laws were enacted due to a "housing crisis" (per legislative language) and said laws will CEASE to exist when the vacancy rate goes over 5% -- something that has failed to happen in NYC for the past 30 + years.

[vc10]

Whatever system you put in, people will take advantage of it. Count on it. The only system where that's not possible is market rate.

Cambridge MA had tight rent control in the 80s. It was abolished in the mid 90s. At the time, it became apparent that a lot of the cheapest, most desirable rent controlled places were occupied by city politicians, bureaucrats etc. They were insiders, they knew how to play the system.


We need to make it so that people do not take advantage of the system. That goes for both sides though....

[TonyO]

Whatever system you put in, people will take advantage of it. Count on it. The only system where that's not possible is market rate.

Cambridge MA had tight rent control in the 80s. It was abolished in the mid 90s. At the time, it became apparent that a lot of the cheapest, most desirable rent controlled places were occupied by city politicians, bureaucrats etc. They were insiders, they knew how to play the system.

What is the rental market in Cambridge like now?

[lofter1]

This question still has not been answered:

If the supply for all these "market rate" rental apartments is so great then why are there not hundreds of thousands of market-rate rentals being built?
Removal of Rent Stabilization laws will not effect building costs for new housing in any way, shape or form, so that is a red herring.

[JMGarcia]

The thing the bothers me the most (and there are many) about rent control is the unfairness of the system. Who gets a rent controlled/stabilized apartment and how? It is patently unfair that the some who need it get one and some who need it don't. It is even more unfair the some who don't need it get one while some who need it don't.

Its a perfect recipe for corruption from people sub-letting their apartment at a profit to people making under the table payments to get a unit.

The fact of the matter is that there will never be enough housing in Manhattan for everyone who wants to live here and at a rate that everyone can afford. I fail to see a good reason why the government should subsidize some folks to live here and not others.

[vc10]

Haven't been to Cambridge in years, but my understanding is that it gentrified like wildfire and rents skyrocketed. Lots of folks moved away.

And that's basically how it should be. Cambridge is a very desirable place to live---rents should reflect that. The fact that some people can't afford Cambridge and have to move to other places in the Boston area is not a tragedy, it's the way things should be, and it's better for the economy overall if prices reflect underlying supply and demand.


What is the rental market in Cambridge like now?

[lofter1]

I fail to see a good reason why the government should subsidize some folks to live here and not others.
How does the government "subsidize" rent stabilized tenants?
For the most part buildings under Rent Stabilization are privately owned, not government owned.
Rent Stabilized tenants in privately held buildings receive no subsidy.

def.:


subsidized, subsidised (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/subsidised)
having partial financial support from public funds

subsidy

: a grant or gift of money
: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public
http://www.m-w.com/images/pixt.gif

[JMGarcia]

^Landlords with rent stablized/controlled apartments are given tax breaks for those units in most cases. The government is, in effect, giving them back money for this purpose.

In any case, whether you consider that government subsidized or not I still find it completely unfair that some people get a break on their rent and some don't for no discernable reason. This is my main point.

[stache]

The reason some people get a break is that they took the time to figure out the laws and made the effort to find an apt. that fits into those guidelines. The ones that don't get a break are the ones that rent somebody's condo etc. and don't pay attention.

[lofter1]

^Landlords with rent stablized/controlled apartments are given tax breaks for those units in most cases. The government is, in effect, giving them back money for this purpose.

Re: "tax breaks":
You might be referring to specific "J-51" type buildings, under which rules the tax break to the owner is for a set number of years, as is the Rent Stabilized status for tenants. When that period ends the building is "de-regulated" and rents go to "market" levels.

Most Rent Stabilized buildings involve no subsidy / tax breaks whatsoever.

[Ninjahedge]

The reason some people get a break is that they took the time to figure out the laws and made the effort to find an apt. that fits into those guidelines. The ones that don't get a break are the ones that rent somedoby's condo etc. and don't pay attention.

Um, what?

Sorry, no. It is the ones on the "in" crowd that get information from a realtor that an old lady is going to croak and her WWII 1200SF park avenue place is only at $300 a month.

You can look all you want, but most of the controled places never make it past the realty agencies they list in.


I still think that more investigation should be placed behind motivating the people who do not need it to be forced to move.

I am not looking for more housing projects, but more of a middle class occupation.

Why is it only the rich and the dirt poor that can live 20 min from their job in NYC?

[JMGarcia]

The reason some people get a break is that they took the time to figure out the laws and made the effort to find an apt. that fits into those guidelines. The ones that don't get a break are the ones that rent somedoby's condo etc. and don't pay attention.

There is simply no way I could find such an apartment. I do not have the contacts. I have 3 friends that live in rent controlled apartments. 2 got them by paying bribes. The other "inherited" it from her mother. 1 of the ones who bribed his way has sub-let it at a profit for years now.

[JMGarcia]

Re: "tax breaks":
You might be referring to specific "J-51" type buildings, under which rules the tax break to the owner is for a set number of years, as is the Rent Stabilized status for tenants. When that period ends the building is "de-regulated" and rents go to "market" levels.

Most Rent Stabilized buildings involve no subsidy / tax breaks whatsoever.

Landlords of rent controlled buildings get a corporate/income tax break/deduction, not a property tax break.

[lofter1]

Only the rich and the dirt poor?

My RS building contains people who earn mostly between $40K - $60K / year. Rents average ~ $1,200 / month.

Solid middle class, tax-paying, working people. Nurses, teachers, musicians, writers, etc.

Don't fit into many of the pre-conceptions regarding RS tenants that have been cited previously on this thread.

[lofter1]

Landlords of rent controlled buildings get a corporate/income tax break/deduction, not a property tax break.
Aha -- perhaps that is the crux as to why so many owners of RS buildings own more than one RS building: Rather than being bad for their business interests they can show a "loss" and use that to balance out their gains in other areas.

Who is playing the system now?

[lofter1]

1 of the ones who bribed his way has sub-let it at a profit for years now.
Which is illegal -- and leaves your friend liable for treble-damages on any amount that he charged the sub-tenant over the regulated rent. Also grounds for eviction.

In the past couple of years more and more owners have started keeping tabs on situations like these (knowing they can use the info to oust law-breakers).

So hopefully your friend has put away some of those ill-gotten gains to hire a good lawyer. ;)

[vc10]

Average salary on Manhattan is $100K. If this building is in Manhattan then, yeah, at half average salary levels, people in your building are poor. Maybe not dirt poor, but poor.

It's all relative.


Only the rich and the dirt poor?

My RS building contains people who earn mostly between $40K - $60K / year. Rents average ~ $1,200 / month.

Solid middle class, tax-paying, working people. Nurses, teachers, musicians, writers, etc.

Don't fit into many of the pre-conceptions regarding RS tenants that have been cited previously on this thread.

[TonyO]

On another note, I went in to give my landlord my signed lease renewal on my market-rate apt. In trying to negotiate my $25/month rent increase, they told me that I was lucky because some tenants received $200/month increases.

Just a little view at the heated rental market we are in.

[JMGarcia]

Which is illegal -- and leaves your friend liable for treble-damages on any amount that he charged the sub-tenant over the regulated rent. Also grounds for eviction.

In the past couple of years more and more owners have started keeping tabs on situations like these (knowing they can use the info to oust law-breakers).

So hopefully your friend has put away some of those ill-gotten gains to hire a good lawyer. ;)

Absolutely it is illegal and I wouldn't be surprised if the landlord was also getting a cut. It is also completely uneforceable which is, IMO, another major flaw in the current system we have.

[lofter1]

Absolutely it is illegal and I wouldn't be surprised if the landlord was also getting a cut.
Nope, wouldn't surprise me either.

It is also completely uneforceable which is, IMO, another major flaw in the current system we have.
The failure of government to enforce laws / regulations is what leaves the citizenry with little to no faith in those who lead us.

This is not just true regarding rent laws as have been discussed here, but also true for any number of other areas:

Employment (witness the utter failure of official in charge, despite all the ranting and raving about undocumented illegal aliens, to police the corporations that hire illegal workers)
Building codes (understaffed inspector positions)
Environmental laws (budgets for enforcement slashed)
etc., etc., etc.

[Ninjahedge]

Only the rich and the dirt poor?

My RS building contains people who earn mostly between $40K - $60K / year. Rents average ~ $1,200 / month.

Solid middle class, tax-paying, working people. Nurses, teachers, musicians, writers, etc.

Don't fit into many of the pre-conceptions regarding RS tenants that have been cited previously on this thread.

Lofter, if you work downtown, try to find a place where two average people that want to have enough room to raise a kid (theres the kicker) can live within 20 minutes commute without forgoing their retirement savings plan.

Most of the people here at work are living at least 45 min away in Queens, Brooklyn, and NJ. Why? They can't/don't want to live hand-to-mouth in the city because they are living in something bigger than 500SF.... ;)

[Ninjahedge]

PS, you are also talking RS.

I am talking the whole kit and kaboodle. RS AND RC.

[lofter1]

In my building over half of the tenants have raised kids here (many raised more than one, many who have gone on to become terrific adults and near-adults). And ~ 75% of the original tenants still make this building their home, even after all these years.

Granted, we were "pioneers" and moved into this place decades before (really) the neighborhood became the shopping mall it is now.

Basically the tenants built this place up from raw space into liveable homes (we put in the kitchens, baths, walls, electric, etc. -- or hired someone more knowledgeable to do so). Also we had the foresight to develop work space for ourselves within our living units (something that is now required by zoning under the acronym JLWQ: Joint Living Work Quarters).

The current owner of our building bought it after our whole gang were well established -- which didn't stop the owner from trying to run us out (no heat for years, elevators ripped out, other forms of on-going harassment). But we were young(er) and crazy and stayed put. And while our lawyers were never as clever or as well-connected or as expensive as the attack dogs that the owner hired the law was always on our side -- and so we are still here. Not that this makes the owner happy: we get continual overtures for a "buy-out", but never with any specifics; the only way a buy-out works is if you're willing to leave NYC. But our work / lives are intrinsically connected to Manhattan, and none want to (or can) leave this great metropolis.

If our building were not covered by various rent laws this owner probably could have kicked our butts years ago. But the protections that the law affords us has made it possible for many of us to fulfill the dream of art / life / love (sometimes) in NYC.

So, as you can see, I'm a big fan of laws that protect the rights of tenants. I've yet to hear an argument that would convince me that those laws are detrimental to NYC as a whole. In fact I firmly believe that without them NYC would lose some of the very individuals that make this place so vibrant and interesting.

Shucks, now I'm getting sentimental ...

[lofter1]

NOW THAT'S WHAT WE CALL HOTEL HOSPITALITY

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12062005/gossip/58345.htm


December 6, 2005 -- WHEN Ian Schrager finishes renovating the Gramercy Park Hotel in the spring and splitting part of the building into 30 luxury condos at 50 Gramercy Park North, seven lucky rent-stabilized tenants will get to move back in at close to the ridiculously low rents they paid before. Schrager moved them into other buildings "for their convenience and safety" when he started construction, as he did for 100 tenants at the Hudson hotel a few years ago.

"If they move back in, they move back in," Schrager shrugs.

Among those who could reclaim their homes are Ruth Weissberg and her son, Steven, who held a 15-year lease on the hotel that Schrager bought out.

"They were living in the hotel," Schrager said. "We're treating them like any other tenants" — although they're probably a lot richer than most renters.

[stache]

There is simply no way I could find such an apartment. I do not have the contacts. I have 3 friends that live in rent controlled apartments. 2 got them by paying bribes. The other "inherited" it from her mother. 1 of the ones who bribed his way has sub-let it at a profit for years now.

Then it would be in your best interest to report your friend to the appropriate agency and get him evicted. You're just not trying very hard, and unfortunately the party is pretty much over in Mahattan to find a stabelized apartment anyway.

[stache]

On another note, I went in to give my landlord my signed lease renewal on my market-rate apt. In trying to negotiate my $25/month rent increase, they told me that I was lucky because some tenants received $200/month increases.

Just a little view at the heated rental market we are in.

Tony you are very lucky. People in my building that have gone over the 2K mark are offered one year leases with 10% annual increases.

[stache]

Lofter, if you work downtown, try to find a place where two average people that want to have enough room to raise a kid (theres the kicker) can live within 20 minutes commute without forgoing their retirement savings plan.

Most of the people here at work are living at least 45 min away in Queens, Brooklyn, and NJ. Why? They can't/don't want to live hand-to-mouth in the city because they are living in something bigger than 500SF.... ;)

On the bright side I see no guns being put to anybody's head in order to force them to reproduce. Besides, people with kids get all kinds of tax deductions.

[JMGarcia]

Then it would be in your best interest to report your friend to the appropriate agency and get him evicted. You're just not trying very hard, and unfortunately the party is pretty much over in Mahattan to find a stabelized apartment anyway.

Tell you what, you hear of a nice rent controlled apartment you let me know.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Besides, people with kids get all kinds of tax deductions.Yeah, it's a real financial bonanza.

[lofter1]

Then it would be in your best interest to report your friend to the appropriate agency and get him evicted.
Getting the guy evicted wouldn't do anything to help out JMGarcia, unless he was able to cut some sort of deal before hand with the Landlord where the apartment, once cleared of his not-so-law-abiding friend, would go to JMGarcia.

Unfortunately JMGarcia would have already shown his cards to the Landlord by revealing himself as someone aware of Rent Stabilization laws. That immediately puts you low on any Landlord's list of desireable tenants. Almost as bad, though not quite so, as being on the infamous tenant blacklist -- which just about each and every tenant who has ever been involved in a legal dispute with any landlord ends up on (whether the tenant had any fault in the matter). Being on that blacklist makes it nearly impossible to rent an apartment in NYC. All the more reason to hold on to your Rent Stabilized apartment. And fight like hell to keep it.

[BrooklynRider]

In my building over half of the tenants have raised kids here (many raised more than one, many who have gone on to become terrific adults and near-adults). And ~ 75% of the original tenants still make this building their home, even after all these years....

That is truly of a different era. Then they went to Chelsea and the East Village and were chased out by gentrifying landlords. Then they went to Lower East Side and Alphabet City and were chased out by gentrifying landlords. Then they went to Dumbo and Williamsburg and are being chased out by gentrfying landlords.

SOHO was unique in that it opened up the city and landlords to the idea of converting and reimagining neighborhoods. It could only happen once. Landlords, developers and the city won't let it happen again. It's all about money (as we all know). If you got it, you're welcome to stay. If not, they sweep you off to the next "undesirable location." Then you arrive, it becomes desirable and "poof!", you are gone.

[stache]

Tell you what, you hear of a nice rent controlled apartment you let me know.

You probably wouldn't like my finder's fee. ;P

[JMGarcia]

You probably wouldn't like my finder's fee. ;P

No doubt - lol.

Seriously, if anyone here actually lives in a rent controlled apartment I would love to hear how they found it.

[vc10]

I had one in Cambridge when it was rent controlled. It was a 3-4 bedroom apt for less than $500/month. It was a roommate situation---one roommate moved out, I moved in. The ceilings sagged, the walls were spongy, when it got cold (below zero) the inside temperature plunged into the 50s (I went to bed wearing a hat!). Luckily one of the roommates had a cat, or we would have had a rodent problem.

This is the type of cr*p that happens in rent control situations. I'm actually interested in going back to see what happened to that building, now that rent control is 10 years gone there.


No doubt - lol.

Seriously, if anyone here actually lives in a rent controlled apartment I would love to hear how they found it.

[lofter1]

...if anyone here actually lives in a rent controlled apartment I would love to hear how they found it.
Just rent controlled? Or rent stabilized as well?

[JMGarcia]

Just rent controlled? Or rent stabilized as well?

I was really interested in an honest to goodness rent controlled apartment. But a rent stabilized story would be good as well. :)

[stache]

IMO stabilized is a better deal at this point. The problem is you would have to go pretty far out in the boroughs to find something under 2K that you would like.

[JMGarcia]

IMO stabilized is a better deal at this point. The problem is you would have to go pretty far out in the boroughs to find something under 2K that you would like.

..and I thought I just wasn't trying hard enough. ;) :)