---

Posted by Dottie on April 29, 1997 at 07:26:38:

In Reply to: Re: New Census Bureau states show tenants who benefit from rent regs are mostly lower middle class or working poor posted by Greg on April 28, 1997 at 22:01:49:

: I agree with you that mostly the middle/working class
: benefit from rent stabilization. But why should ANY
: wealthy people occupy rent stabilized units. By lowering
: the maximum income to $100,000 a year it would free up
: 5% or more of the rent stabilized units for new working
: class people who recently came to New York. Let the
: wealthy fend for themselves.

Oh,oh. After I posted those statistics, I realized
that someone would respond exactly as you did.
Thanks for doing so, because it's an argument
we fear that the pro-landlord groups will make:
they will say that so-called "luxury decontrol"
which occurs now for apartments renting for
$2,000 or more where the occupant(s) makes
$250,000 should be lowered to decontrol occur-
ing when the occupant(s) make $100,000.

Excuse me,but in New York City making$100,000
a year does NOT make you rich! Think of a two
income couple making $50,000 each. After taxes
that ain't rich! Think of four young people sharing
a two-bedroom apartment. Each of them makes
$25,000. Rich? Pu-lease!

What I fear even more is that the next step is that
two or four years from now, or whenever this issue
rears its ugly head again, "luxury decontrol" will be
lowered still more to something like "if your rent
is $1,500 a month and you make $50,000 a year"
your apartment will be decontrolled,and lower and
lower each time until rent regs disappear! We know
that is the strategy!!!!!!

That is why most tenant groups are now fighting
against the very continuance of luxury decontrol.
It's based on the "big lie" that landlords are
suffering and is just one more way to do away
with rent regs altogether.

Follow Ups:

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: : I agree with you that mostly the middle/working class
: : benefit from rent stabilization. But why should ANY
: : wealthy people occupy rent stabilized units. By lowering
: : the maximum income to $100,000 a year it would free up
: : 5% or more of the rent stabilized units for new working
: : class people who recently came to New York. Let the
: : wealthy fend for themselves.

: Oh,oh. After I posted those statistics, I realized 
: that someone would respond exactly as you did. 
: Thanks for doing so, because it's an argument
: we fear that the pro-landlord groups will make: 
: they will say that so-called "luxury decontrol" 
: which occurs now for apartments renting for 
: $2,000 or more where the occupant(s) makes
: $250,000 should be lowered to decontrol occur-
: ing when the occupant(s) make $100,000.

: Excuse me,but in New York City making$100,000
: a year does NOT make you rich! Think of a two 
: income couple making $50,000 each. After taxes
: that ain't rich! Think of four young people sharing
: a two-bedroom apartment. Each of them makes
: $25,000. Rich? Pu-lease!  

: What I fear even more is that the next step is that
: two or four years from now, or whenever this issue
: rears its ugly head again, "luxury decontrol" will be
: lowered still more to something like "if your rent
: is $1,500 a month and you make $50,000 a year" 
: your apartment will be decontrolled,and lower and
: lower each time until rent regs disappear! We know
: that is the strategy!!!!!! 

: That is why most tenant groups are now fighting
: against the very continuance of luxury decontrol.
: It's based on the "big lie" that landlords are
: suffering and is just one more way to do away
: with rent regs altogether.


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---