Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 82

Thread: Rental Stabilization Increases

  1. #1

    Default Rental Stabilization Increases

    So what are you thoughts on the proposed increase?

    "The city’s Rent Guidelines Board recommended increases of 3.5 percent to 7 percent for one-year leases and 5.5 percent to 9.5 percent for two-year leases. "



    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/ny...l?ref=nyregion

  2. #2

    Default The usual

    I can see the reactions now:

    Landlords: The increase is ridiculously low. It doesn't cover the much higher maintenance costs or the high fuel prices. We think the increase should be doubled.

    Renters: This is an outrage. We are in a depressed economic environment, and rents should not be rising. We recommend a rent decrease.

  3. #3

    Default

    ^An appallingly ignorant or malicious misstatement of the law and facts.

    See http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/decontrol.html

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteynyc1 View Post
    Extremely low turnout at the meeting last nite. The people who are still paying $400 per month will only being paying an extra $38.00 at 9.5%. Its those people currently at 1850.00 where its especially crucial, aside from the increase of 171.00. If its a max increase, this will push them over the 2000.00 threshhold, putting them in fair market rate category. Their rent will increase to 3000 instantly. They could always do a 1 year of course, but they better prepare for the worst in the next year. A large increase will mean more rent stabilized units lost forever.
    That's ONLY if they make $175,000 two years in a row which seems like a fairly high income to still need an artificially low rent to me.

    Then again I know of people who game their income. Earning much higher incomes one year and incomes under $175k the next. Easier to do in a freelance world, obviously.

    But then again, do people making $175,000 per year AND living in a rs apartment at $400/month deserve the protection? Should it only be for those whose rent reaches the $2,000 mark?

    In general, artificial caps tend to distort a market. It can be argued that free market rents are higher due to the supply constraint of rent stabilization. Of course, rent vouchers and the other assistance should be in place.

    I do, however, wonder how many "undeserving" people live in RS apartments. I know of people who have them and own houses in the Hamptons or Florida.

    It is a political third rail in NYC but it still a sham for so many. Anyone want to guess what % of those one million apartments are occupied: illegally or by people making more than $175k/year or by people who own a home in another state?

    RS has its heart in the right place. But for too many people, it has become a way to game a system. Pity.

  5. #5

    Default

    Stabilized rents should be allowed to float based on indexes tied to certain costs (fuel, water and sewer, taxes, and insurance). The LL have no control over these. Many are set be they government, so you can have the government raising the costs for the buildings, and then not letting the LL recover them. In a free market, the LLs could pad the rents to deal with increases, but under stabilization, they can't do this.

  6. #6
    http://tinyurl.com/2ag28z Front_Porch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Manhattan 90210
    Posts
    1,413

    Default

    Stabilization rewards old people, many of whom put in their time living through years of a not-so-nice New York so that the city could improve into the wonderland we live in now. I know it has its distortions but I think overall it's good policy.

    That said, fuel costs are totally through the roof -- I think the board did a nice job of trying to be attuned to that without killing the existing RS tenants.

    ali r.
    {downtown broker}

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Front_Porch View Post
    Stabilization rewards old people, many of whom put in their time living through years of a not-so-nice New York so that the city could improve into the wonderland we live in now.
    In theory.

    I would bet more than 50% of the 1 million RS apartments are occupied solely by people younger than 45. Which means they were 10 years old in 1974.

    Nothing wrong with the theory of RS. After so long though, it becomes a game and an entitlement.

  8. #8

    Default

    ^
    Everything is wrong with the theory of RS. It's probably the prime cause of the housing shortage in NYC.

  9. #9

    Default

    That's much more recent.

    The Federal Rent Controls during WWII -- 1943-- were necessary as inflation was out of control due to the war effort. Also, as soldiers returned home and there was a massive demand spike. Hard to replicate that in history.

    There were also massive public/private work projects like Stuy Town that required large changes to the area including the destruction of public schools for a "private" project. Robert Moses jumped through hoops.

    The EPCA was not a bad idea. It was needed and considering what those young soldiers did for our country, adequate housing free of price gouging was the least that could be done. It expired in 1947. Its job was done.

    Even the state controls put in 1950 weren't that terrible. The 1962 State/City RS is a whole another matter.

    Permanent artificial ceilings are bad. Any economist can tell you that.

    Housing assistance is something I am in favor of but not for the middle class and certainly not for the many people who game the system.

    The original Emergency Price Control Act was done at a very unique time in our history. The theory was sound. It migrated to State controls then, ultimately to the 1984 current version. A disaster.

    Haven't seen many studies on Boston since it eliminated the controls. Anyone seen one?
    Last edited by stache; May 7th, 2008 at 06:28 PM. Reason: Quoted directly preceding post.

  10. #10
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    It is so tiring to hear these absolutely ignorant theories of how Rent Stabilization keeps rental prices higher. After years of reading it here and being repeatedly treated to this argument, I have little respect for the intelligence of people who still espouse it. There is absoutely nothing - N-O-T-H-I-N-G - that supports this theory. We have been through an incredible building boom in NYC and the additional units added to this market have done absoutely nothing - N-O-T-H-I-N-G - to bring down rental prices. It seems that the argument goes along the lines that everyone should live miserable in tiny shoeboxes at exhorbitant prices, including those in decent rent stabilized apartments. It would make more sense to be arguing that everyone should be getting decent homes at rent stabilized prices.

    We live in an age where our education system and society are producing numbskulls who actually believe that there is a fair free market system. Far from it. Fair market is all about letting the people with the product gouge the consumer. The fact that people are still making this ridiculous argument since I got to this sight back in 2001 just astounds me. Put down the silly economy books and look at the economy and market. There's some education to be gained from the real world. Something not often addressed in the halls of higher education.

  11. #11
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    Amen brother.

  12. #12
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    Especially when you consider that there are no price regulations on commercial rents, yet prices often triple on storefronts when their leases expire. There seems to be no 'shortage' of retail space in Manhattan.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynRider View Post
    It is so tiring to hear these absolutely ignorant theories of how Rent Stabilization keeps rental prices higher. After years of reading it here and being repeatedly treated to this argument, I have little respect for the intelligence of people who still espouse it. There is absoutely nothing - N-O-T-H-I-N-G - that supports this theory. We have been through an incredible building boom in NYC and the additional units added to this market have done absoutely nothing - N-O-T-H-I-N-G - to bring down rental prices.
    Even if supply is increased, if demand increases more then the effect would be difficult to see.

    How much has the population of NYC expanded in the past decade? How many more larger families now live here?

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-19281231.html

    http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...study-who.html

    http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wpawuwpur/0109001.htm

    But there is also:

    http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/...nrentstudy.pdf

    and many more

    To say there is nothing to support it is to not have looked. To say you don't agree, well, then you would be yet another junior economist in the room and get more than one in a room and a decent argument will ensue.

    To say that you haven't seen rent declines in a building boom is like me saying I've never seen a murder but seen a bunch of guns, who says guns kill people? Demand has and continues to outstrip supply. Even with new supply. Demand increased more. You can partially thank a very weak dollar.

    We also artificially -- rightly or wrongly -- limit supply through rs.

    It's an interesting debate. To dismiss it and the intelligence of those who partake in it is your loss.

  14. #14

    Default

    There are way too many economist who dissagree with you for that argument to have any validity whatsoever.

    But the best counter argument is this. We've had rent regulation for a half century (among the other regulatory fiascos in NYC), and whe have the most screwed up housing market it the country. You can tap dance around this all you want, but it's the truth. No where else is there less vacancies or higher rents.

    The only people who support regulation are the regulated renters who want to keep their sweet deals, and the class warriors.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynRider View Post
    It is so tiring to hear these absolutely ignorant theories of how Rent Stabilization keeps rental prices higher. After years of reading it here and being repeatedly treated to this argument, I have little respect for the intelligence of people who still espouse it. There is absoutely nothing - N-O-T-H-I-N-G - that supports this theory. We have been through an incredible building boom in NYC and the additional units added to this market have done absoutely nothing - N-O-T-H-I-N-G - to bring down rental prices. It seems that the argument goes along the lines that everyone should live miserable in tiny shoeboxes at exhorbitant prices, including those in decent rent stabilized apartments. It would make more sense to be arguing that everyone should be getting decent homes at rent stabilized prices.

    We live in an age where our education system and society are producing numbskulls who actually believe that there is a fair free market system. Far from it. Fair market is all about letting the people with the product gouge the consumer. The fact that people are still making this ridiculous argument since I got to this sight back in 2001 just astounds me. Put down the silly economy books and look at the economy and market. There's some education to be gained from the real world. Something not often addressed in the halls of higher education.

  15. #15

    Default

    I for one don't think rent stabilisation matters one bit, there is a great demand for housing in ny and if the rent stabilised apt's were set at market rent it wouldn't change a single thing. Except maybe make people who pay less now pay more and shift more tax dollars into the NYC
    bureaucracy.

    I think rent stabilisation should only be there for people over 65 with income AND savings that are less than the city median.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. List of rental buildings in NYC
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: January 19th, 2015, 07:22 PM
  2. Replies: 383
    Last Post: July 21st, 2012, 01:38 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2005, 07:27 PM
  4. Nicole (400 West 55th Street) - Rental - by Costas Kondylis
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 15th, 2003, 03:58 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software