Rent Guidelines Board Increases

[eastsidah]

HJ, expressing an opinion that is not of the majority is always constructive. The sad thing is that there are so many people who think these rent laws actually do them a favor. In my building there is a woman who married a dying man just to get his rent controled apartment (he was in his late 80's she in her lat 40's). There is also another woman who basically lives in another state and rents out her rooms for over double what she pays. There are only nine units in my building. I have a feeling that these stories are very comon. I even remeber a thread on this board where people were advising a tenant to have his dying father move back into the city so he could get succession rights. Disgusting! These laws make people play games and jump through hoops for their housing and this only occurs in NYC, the only large city with rent control.

[Sean Flaherty]

Any law can be manipulated to the betterment of an ass-hole. However, in most cases, it seems that landlords take full advantage of their positions, including and not limited to intimidating tenants unaware of rr laws.

Obviously, only an evil piece of shit would think of moving your dying father just to keep your home.

I think it's safe to say that the "majority" of persons visiting this incredibly helpful site are just trying to keep their homes.

While I appreciate the devil's advocate role you are trying to fulfill here, I don't think it will serve - you or anyone here - well.

[NYCkid]

Originally posted by eastsidah:
HJ, expressing an opinion that is not of the majority is always constructive. The sad thing is that there are so many people who think these rent laws actually do them a favor. In my building there is a woman who married a dying man just to get his rent controled apartment (he was in his late 80's she in her lat 40's). There is also another woman who basically lives in another state and rents out her rooms for over double what she pays. There are only nine units in my building. I have a feeling that these stories are very comon. I even remeber a thread on this board where people were advising a tenant to have his dying father move back into the city so he could get succession rights. Disgusting! These laws make people play games and jump through hoops for their housing and this only occurs in NYC, the only large city with rent control.

So because there are tenants who break and exploit the law, the majority of us who play by the rules should be stripped of our rights?

[TenantNet]

Originally posted by eastsidah:
HJ, expressing an opinion that is not of the majority is always constructive.

It's permitted, encouraged (to a degree) and might be constructive - but that begs the question as to the facts you relate, and they do seem dubious.

The sad thing is that there are so many people who think these rent laws actually do them a favor.

They do - the temper rent increases, require services.

In my building ... (snip diatribe).

There are always abuses -- we all know that. But to cite two tenant abuses (if true) does not condemn the system and hardly compares next to landlord horrors. (and the lady would rent out rooms no matter if it was regulated or not). Actually regs prohibit that, so it's not the regs that should be faulted, it's the tenant or the lack of enforcement.

even remeber a thread on this board where people were advising a tenant to have his dying father move back into the city so he could get succession rights.

That's the law and encourages stability. Maybe you would rather have the tenant lie about his succession rights.

Disgusting! These laws make people play games and jump through hoops for their housing and this only occurs in NYC.

Sounds like you're mad because you've had a hard time finding a RS unit. Blame the politicians for making them less available, not those who benefit from protections against abuse.

<small>[ January 31, 2003, 02:34 AM: Message edited by: TenantNet ]</small>

[TenantNet]

Thread coming to an end. As we posted our opinion in the preceding message, we'll allow a little latitude from he who is angry about not finding a good deal. But we remind everyone (and is a long-standing policy on this board) that we won't allow flame-wars on rent issues. Not implying that anyone has crossed the line, but with this issue it does happen. I suspect this will happen soon on Usenet where flame wars are appropriate.

[Chimera]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
even remeber a thread on this board where people were advising a tenant to have his dying father move back into the city so he could get succession rights.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the law and encourages stability. Maybe you would rather have the tenant lie about his succession rights.

I don't think that's what eastsidah was trying to express. It appears that in that situation, the desire to pay low rent has overcome the desire to keep a dying father in a stable situation. I'm very surprised the moderator of this board has encouraged this behavior, and implied that lying was the only other choice for this individual.

A lot of people on this board post emotional responses with some questionable facts. With the lopsided ratio of pro-rr vs anti-rr on this board, at least a small amount of balance is achieved.

<small>[ January 31, 2003, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: Chimera ]</small>

[TenantNet]

Originally posted by Chimera:

quote:

I don't think that's what eastsidah was trying to express. It appears that in that situation, the desire to pay low rent has overcome the desire to keep a dying father in a stable situation. I'm very surprised the moderator of this board has encouraged this behavior, and implied that lying was the only other choice for this individual.

A lot of people on this board post emotional responses with some questionable facts. With the lopsided ratio of pro-rr vs anti-rr on this board, at least a small amount of balance is achieved.

On that thread, no one was recommending the tenant put his father in an unstable situation -- it was just a recognition of the law; for succession rights, one must live with the parent for two years (one year if 62 or disabled). You should not miscontrue what was said then, and now. Nor should you claim that because the board is pro-tenant, it's therefore out of balance. Remember where you are; this is not Landlord.net. In the real world DHCR and the courts are overwhelmingly pro-landlord, so this board being a small measure of comfort, solidarity and hopefully good advice is our goal. There can be (and are) legitimate criticism of rent regulation, but what you normally see, as we have in this case, a very uninformed opinion. It would be better for some small landlord to complain that regulation limits his/her income (which is true) than to throw out red-herring issues of the occasional tenant taking advantage of the system, in which cases there are usually remedies for the landlords to take.

[Lilly]

LL's have an arsenal of things at their disposal to prevent the 2 situations you described from continuing.

[queenswoman]

I'm a prime example of what can happen when there's a person doesn't live in a rent regulated apartment. Two times in a row I lived in a non-rent stabilized building (less than 6 units). In both buildings the landlords did not comply with the law in terms of giving sufficient heat. When I complained about this and refused to back down about asserting my rights, after 6 months each landlord retaliated by raising my rents to whatever they felt like. This is what can and does happen when a person does not live in a rent regulated building.

[Chimera]

Originally posted by TenantNet:
You should not miscontrue what was said then, and now. Nor should you claim that because the board is pro-tenant, it's therefore out of balance. Remember where you are; this is not Landlord.net. In the real world DHCR and the courts are overwhelmingly pro-landlord, so this board being a small measure of comfort, solidarity and hopefully good advice is our goal.

My original post:

A lot of people on this board post emotional responses with some questionable facts. With the lopsided ratio of pro-rr vs anti-rr on this board, at least a small amount of balance is achieved.

You've accused Eastsidah of posting 'dubious facts', but when one reads his post it's clear that he is posting pure opinions, of which he makes no airs. You've accused me of claiming this board is 'pro-tenant' (duh, it's called TenantNet) and therefore out of balance, when I have clearly posted my feeling that this board is pro-rr and out of balance in that respect. People can't even express the meagerest anti-rr sentiment without getting jumped on and having their words twisted.

[Lilly]

as I have previously posted, LL's can make building-wide improvements enabling them to increase rents to occupied apartments; and bear in mind that unlike an assessment to a co-op or condo, these increases become a permanent part of the rent and go on forever. LL's can move to evict tenants who overcharge their roommates and tenants who have too many roommates. LL's can renovate a vacant apartment and can, and almost always do in the case of an apartment that's a
1 Br or larger in better areas, raise the rent to $2000 or more, thus removing it from rent regulation. Those that cannot be raised to $2000 are nontheless raised susbstantially, or to whatever the market will bear, renovations or not. I have lived in my apartment since 1995 and my rent has increased by about 33% with renewal leases and 4 MCI's. Rent regulations aren't just about limiting rent increases, they are about compelling LL's to provide a standard of service and preventing LL's from evicting tenants on a whim.

[eastsidah]

Moderator, do you really feel that these abuses are isolated or uncommon events? My opinion that the majority of people that take on roommates in RR apartments are overcharging is not based on a scientific study but on my own observations. When I moved to NYC a few months ago I looked into a share to save money. There were a lot of people advertising rooms in RR apartments that seem to be overcharging. I know it’s impossible to tell unless you see their lease, but when they respond that “it’s none of your business what my rent is” and they are charging $900 for a room in an apartment that they have lived in for 15 years then you have to wonder. I know that this could happen whether there are regs or not, but it doesn’t seem equitable to limit what a LL can charge and then allow a tenant to profiteer from this limitation. Go on craigslist.org or the village voice website and check it out for yourself. I also realize that this board doesn’t encourage or condone this practice, my point is only that I think there is a lot of abuse in this area.

Of course it makes me angry that it’s hard to find an affordable apartment in this city. It is also my opinion that this is mainly caused by rent regs. The hoarding caused by the regs makes the rooms that the RR tenants are renting out more valuable, encouraging the abuse mentioned above. Do you really think that the low vacancy rate in NYC is not at least partially caused by the regs? Comparing NYC to non-regulated cities indicates that it is a primary cause. Also, do you feel that it is the governments responsibility to provide the city with housing or the private housing industry?

Everyone is afraid that if there were no regs then only wealthy people could live in Manhattan. I read of a study done a couple of years ago (when the economy was stronger and salaries higher) that if every household in the METRO New York area with an income over $100,000 moved into Manhattan that they would not be able to occupy every apartment. If this is true then there is no possible way that the city will only be for the rich if regs are done away with.

As to the point regarding making an apartment habitable, my question is what happens in all the other cities without regs? There is an implied warranty of habitability in all landlord/tenant relationships that arises from common law regardless of what a lease says. There are also laws addressing this issue as well. What we have in New York is a market that is out of whack due to the regs. It has created an undersupply and hoarding which limits your choices if you have a crappy LL. If regs were the best way to protect tenants then NY would be a renter’s paradise while every city with no regs would be a nightmare. I have lived and rented in LA and Chicago and it is my experience and observation that the exact opposite is true. Is their anyone out there whose experience is different? (I know that those cities aren’t islands like Manhattan, but considering the fact that the desirable areas are bounded by much less desirable ones the situation is similar)

I’m not trying to flame or stir up trouble, but it seems that it’s a good idea to have some debate on this board as long as no one crosses the line. The more these issues are discussed, the better we can understand why these regs are necessary. I know that there are other forums to discuss these issues, but this board certainly has the most informed participants, and it also seems much more civil than the one you recommende

[MikeW]

When I made my comments on the top of the thread, it was more in the realm of discussing the political realities the will come into play in the upcoming rent law renewal opera. This has now evolved into the standard pro/anti rent regulation debate.

Usually, I enjoy these debates. However, I've come to the conclusion that they're irrelevent.
Whether the RRs will be renewed, has nothing to do with their theoretical and practical advantages/disadvantages. Renewal will be determined by the underlying balance of power in Albany between the pro and anti RR forces. At this point, that balance is pretty much locked in, having been set by the last election cycle. The rest will pretty much replay the last go around. Come may, the lobbyists will be swarming Albany, as will busloads of rampaging grandmas. But in the end, my read is the anti RR side is more in control this time around.

Tenantnet,

Maybe it's time to create a separate 'Political' subforum for these posts. There are likely to be alot of them as we get closer to June.

[Cranky Tenant]

eastsidah

Sure it's believable that the majority of shares advertised in places like The Village Voice are rip-offs but, why would you expect those ads to be any more credible than any of the ofher ads for apartments? Why would you presume the majority of tenants are advertsisng for shares anyway?

Just by looking at the number of ads, you can pretty much tell the majority rent of regulated tenants aren't advertisng to share their apartments. Most likely they either live alone, with their families, or with long time roomates. Qute honestly, if I were to share my RS Apartment, and only charge 50% as the law outlines, I'd have no need to advertise. People would be beating down my door for that 7 x 11 closet my LL calls a bedroom.

One of the more curious factors is that more and more rent regulated apartments are now going for below the maximum allowed by law because there's only so much people are willing to pay for, what's often, substandard housing.

Rent Regulation is critical to the survival of this city simply because the average household doesn't make enough to pay thousands in rent. Businesses can't afford, or aren't willing, tp pay their workers enough for decent housing in New York.Do away with the little bit of affordable housing this city has and not only will workers leave, but the businesses that rely on the current workforce will leave as well.

Take a look at Boston which did away with rent regulation some time ago.The stable population tends to be made up of homeowners. Most of the apartments, which go for 2000 and up, are rented to three or more students who change apartments faster than they change classes.

And even if, as you said, every family making over $100,000 moved into Manhattan, they wouldn't want to live in the majority of apartments that currently exist here. Rent Regulated apartments simply aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Sure the market in New York is out of wack but not because of regulations. The problem is the huge discrepance between the yearly household income and the cost of living in this city.

[MikeW]

Some miscellaneous comments:

Originally posted by Cranky Tenant:
eastsidah

Rent Regulation is critical to the survival of this city simply because the average household doesn't make enough to pay thousands in rent. Businesses can't afford, or aren't willing, tp pay their workers enough for decent housing in New York.Do away with the little bit of affordable housing this city has and not only will workers leave, but the businesses that rely on the current workforce will leave as well.

Wrong. The city will survive just fine.

Regulated ,or ex-regulated, renters, as the case may be, will have to adjust. Either they'll move to cheaper places in the city or out of the city, or they'll suck it up and pay the new rents. LLs will have to adjust to. First, they'll probably have a lot of empty apartments to fill. For many this will be the first time they've had to deal with this. This means they'll have to cut rents (at least from the free market rents they were used to while regulation was in place), and treat renters as valued customers who can leave if they are treated badly, and not as opponents or peons.

As far as abuse of rent regulation by tenants, it's been going on, on a large scale, for as long as rent regulation existed. Until '97 the LLs had no major incentive to spend the money to evict an abusive tenant, because the vacancy allowences were big enough to make it worth it. I've know people who've ran illegal sublet for decades. The '97 changes did make it worth spending the money to get back the apartments, and you see the LLs cracking down now to a much greater degree. And, remember, until last year, it was perfectly legal to charge a roommate as much as desired, as long as the prime tenant actually lived in the apartment. There was nothing the LL or roommate could say.

<small>[ February 03, 2003, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: MikeW ]</small>