Posted by Stabilization forever on May 06, 1997 at 16:38:34:
My neighborhood in Manhattan (Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village) is a
shining example of the success of rent stabilization. The apartments in
both complexes are extremely well maintained and rent at excellent rates.
My landlord (Metropolitan Life) operates the complexes profitably, and the
tenants of both complexes go to great lengths to maintain the neighborhood.
The relationship between the tenants and Met Life is and always has been
cordial. Despite the low level of turnover in the two complexes, one can
put his/her name on a waiting list and have an apartment in 3-4 years.
Eliminating rent stabilization would certainly devistate
Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village. The many senior citizens in the two
complexes would be forced out, rents would skyrocket due to the desirability
of these apartments and the stability of the neighborhood would be lost.
Let us not forget one issue in this discussion, rent stabilization was put
in place largely to create stable communities. This it has done. Raising
rents in my neighborhood would doubtless reduce the length of the waiting
list, but what is accomplished when one group of middle-class renters who
can afford to live in this neighborhood is at best replaced with a group of
individuals who suffer in order to pay the rent? Met Life is already reaping
a tidy profit from the two complexes and has made effective use of MCIs to
raise the rents incrementally. Do we eliminate rent stabilization overnight
just to allow rich corporations (who own the vast majority of rent stabilized
properties in NYC) to get richer at the expense of the people who helped them
pay the mortgages on these properties? I say no. Those who pay "market" rents
must stop believing the myth that they are subsidizing rent stabilized tenants
and stop wishing us ill simply because we are fortunate enough to have found
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup