Rent Guidelines Board Increases

[Cranky Tenant]

Originally posted by MikeW:

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.

That might be the eventual result but how many tenants and businesses will leave before this kind of balance is reached?

The city is already suffering from loss of tax revenue, cutting services, and raising taxes just to try to keep even. Of course the thought of all these greedy slumlords not profiting as much as they had planned from years of tenant exploitation is mildly amusing but, creating chaos in the housing market isn't going to help stabilize the city as a whole.

[NYCkid]

Originally posted by 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

You moved here a few months ago and you are already an expert on our rent laws and how many people abuse them? It sounds to me like a case of arrogance and sour grapes.

In my opinion, it is the people like you who are to blame for the inflated rents in this city. You move here from our of town and agree to pay inflated rents because they are told "that is how things are in New York." Ditto for your type going through shady brokers and then bitching about how you get ripped off in New York.

Don't even try to compare New York to other city's rents. It is not comprable. Would you pay $300k for a co-op studio in LA? I doubt it.

As a life long Manhattanite, I am tired of out of town scrubs like you moving here and having no respect for real New Yorkers. Because of your kind, we have the Disney Times Square, a Starbucks on every corner of what used to be Broadway, but is now a strip mall. Can't you realize that this city has history and character that should be preserved? You probably don't care, since you are only here for a couple of years anyway, after which you will be back in some non-descript suburb where you won't have to worry about rent-regulations.

[NYCkid]

Originally posted by FairSpectator:
NYCkid, i would believe that you are the person needs to get a clue. Rent regulation was NOT enacted to encourage landlords to maintain property. It's purpose was to prevent huge increases in rent. What makes your comment funny is that rent regulation actually encourages landlords not to maintain their property since the rents are so low. Why would a landlord invest 300 dollars to replace a window when the monthly rental is less than that amount? Would you?

Did I say that the original reason why rent regulations were enacted were to encourage landlords to maintain property? I dont think I did. You totally missed my point, and your facts are way off. If a LL makes improvements, he is allowed to raise the rent a percentage of the improvement (I believe in the neighborhood of 1/40). After three and a half years, the improvement has paid for itself but the rent increase is there to stay. If someone vacates an apt, the LL can make whatever improvements they want, thus raising the rent towards the market value or deregulation. If the market can bear more than $2000 for an apt, most LL's can find enough improvements to get the vacant apt to that point.

If you actually think that regulations encourage LL's to not maintain their property, you either do not understand the law or you are a slumlord. If a LL puts in a video intercom system, he can raise the rents through MCI. New facade to the building? Up goes the rents again. New boiler? Raise the rent. Someone moves out? Renovate and raise the rent again.

You are both funny and clueless.

[eastsidah]

NYCKID, First off, no need to make this personal by using terms like "scrubs".

This is America, I have as much right to live here as you or anybody else. If you can't handle people moving to your city then maybe you should move somewhere where you can compete because it sounds like you are having trouble here in NYC.

As a lifelong Manhattanite, you obviously don't know what renting is like in other large cities. I can assure you that in cities without rent regs the buildings are better maintained, on average than here in NYC.

One reason that real estate is so expensive in NY is that there are fewer units available for sale due to regs. LL's can't just decide to convert their property to own vs. rent because of the regs and this artificialy holds down the apartments that are available for sale.

Are you saying that want regs to prevent comercial property owners from putting up a Starbucks if they want?

This city seems to have functioned just fime befor rent regs. In fact it seems that most of the housing stock was put up before the regs were enacted and that little rental stock has gone up since. I suppose you feel that this is just coincidence.

[jot0n0]

As expected rent regulation will continue in NYC as reported by 1010wins this morning:

Pataki: Extend Rent Control Law
Feb 3, 2003 5:53 pm US/Eastern

(1010 WINS) (NEW YORK) The rent control law that emerged after a bitter struggle among New York's top leaders in 1997 should be extended as is, or with only minor revisions, Gov. George Pataki said Monday.

"I don't see any need for any dramatic changes," Pataki said. "I think the law ... has worked very well." Pataki said the experience of the past six years should be examined "to see if there are some minor changes to be made here or there."

Soon after the Republican governor made his comments, the state Assembly began approving legislation favored by its Democratic majority to extend the rent control statute with some tenant-friendly changes. The law is scheduled to expire this June 15. There is no agreement on the Assembly legislation with the Republican-controlled state Senate or Pataki.

"This measure is a priority for the Assembly Majority and should be passed now so these families do not face months of uncertainty about whether they can afford to stay in their homes," said Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Manhattan Democrat.

Silver said the Assembly Democratic bill would halt the "vacancy decontrol" process under which landlords can remove units permanently from rent limits by making improvements that get the legal rent up to $2,000 or more a month.

Silver said some 84,000 apartments have been lost in the 1.2 million-unit rent control system to "high-rent" vacancy decontrol over the past decade.

A grueling dispute over rent control in 1997 caused a more-than-four-month delay in the passage of that year's state budget. Silver refused to adopt that year's budget unless the rent control system continued on as it previously existed. Senate Republican Majority Leader Joseph Bruno of Rensselaer County for a time challenged the need for rent control and talked about moving to a more free-market system for renting units in the city.

"Let's not see a repeat of the rent wars of 1997," Silver said Monday.

But Republicans assailed Assembly Democrats for bringing up their rent control legislation at this point in the 2003 legislative session.

"It's absurd," said Republican Assemblywoman Catharine Young of Cattaraugus County. "Why are the Assembly Democrats wasting precious time by bringing up this legislation now? Rent control does not expire until June 15, more than four months away. The budget is due April 1, less than two months away. The clock is ticking and we have an unprecedented $11.5 billion deficit to solve."

Senate Republicans understand the need for affordable housing in New York City and do not want to do anything disruptive to the system, said Bruno spokesman John McArdle Monday. But Senate Republicans are not yet focused on extending the rent laws, McArdle said.

"He's concerned that the Assembly has said that laws that don't expire until June are more of a priority than the budget," McArdle said. "That's problematic."

Senate Minority Leader David Paterson, D-Manhattan, said Pataki can back up his positive statements about the rent control law by using his influence among Senate Republicans to get the law extended.

"If the governor does not deliver, today's statements were just empty pronouncements," Paterson said.

[MikeW]

First, as someone posted a few post up, Pataki is making friendly noises about the rent laws, so maybe he doesn't want a fight. Then again, he may let Bruno do his dirty work.

Originally posted by Cranky Tenant:
That might be the eventual result but how many tenants and businesses will leave before this kind of balance is reached?

The city is already suffering from loss of tax revenue, cutting services, and raising taxes just to try to keep even. Of course the thought of all these greedy slumlords not profiting as much as they had planned from years of tenant exploitation is mildly amusing but, creating chaos in the housing market isn't going to help stabilize the city as a whole.

Cranky,

In the end, as many new tenants will come in as will leave. An empty apartment make a LL no money. The apartments will be filled. And they will likely be filled by people making more money than those that left.

This addresses your tax revenue point. Tax collection would increase significantly without any rate hikes. Why? First, people with higher income pay higher amounts in income taxes regardless of what they pay as rent. The government takes its cut off the top. Second, the market valuation of rental buildings with all free market apartments will be significantly higher than regulated buildings. This will increase their assessed value for real estate tax purposes, thereby increasing their real estate tax payments.

Finally, the affect on business will be neutral to positive. The new people coming in will probably be making more than the people who left. Depending on their individual situation, they may or may not have more disposable income to spend then the dearly departed regulated renters.

<small>[ February 04, 2003, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: MikeW ]</small>

[NYCkid]

Eastsider, first of all you dont know me and your weak insults couldnt be more inaccurate. I have no problem competing here and I have lived in other cities, although I grew up in Manhattan. I do not make my arguments out of a position of weakness, but out of conviction.

For you to claim that I should move out of my home just goes to show your ignorant and arrogant stance. Like many other long time New Yorkers, it is important to preserve the nuances of our unique and diverse city. Of course I don't expect a generic sheep like you who just moved here to understand this.

Again, my comments on Starbucks and strip malls were lost on you. They had nothing to do with rent regulation except that they are here for people who are comfortable with strip-mall type franchises.

If you knew your history you would know that this city was in a depression in the 1970s, which stopped new buildings from being built. In the 80s and 90s many buildings were built. Your belief that regulations stop development are due to your limited experience and are pure specualation. Sure, developers are not allowed build anywhere, but there are also zoning laws and other laws that make leaving existing structures in tact sensible.

I dont really see the point of further discussion with you until you learn something about the city in which you live and the people who have lived here before you arrived a few months ago.

[NYCkid]

Fair Spectator, I do know how MCIs work and if done correctly they could raise rents to market value. Your analogy of new windows is lost on me, because if a tenant wants modern windows installed that does count as an MCI, which you are correct needs to be approved by the tenant. If it is replacing a single pane, that is regular maintanance, which is not subject to debate but is required by housing code.

When an apartment is vacated no one needs to give consent for the MCI, the ll only needs to document expenses to DHCR. As far as building wide improvements, I believe that even if they are mandated by law (such as a new boiler) they can be considered as MCIs. I agree that if there is a longstanding tenant who does not agree to MCIs in their apt, the improvements cannot be made. But since the tenant does not want the improvements, the ll does not have to spend the money. Instead, they just wait for the apt to go vacant at which time they can do whatever they choose.

I follow your idea that rents as a whole would go down if there were deregulation, but I do not think this will have as much of an effect as you suggest. I think that deregulated rents will be whatever the market could bear. Even during the boom market of several years ago, luxury housing was not at a shortage, although people were still willing to pay exorbadent rents. In my opinion it is not the $4000 apartments that will be affected. Instead, the $700 and $1200 apartments will go up to whatever the market allows, while comperable $2200 apartments may drop a negligible amount. Of course what both of us see happening is pure speculation and I hope we never find out what will happen.

[eastsidah]

NYCKid, You don't know me either, but you sure seem to know alot about me.

You comment about the starbucks wasn't lost on me. It sounds as if you resent the fact that the city is becoming less affordable while your income remains stagnent. I lived on the Upper West Side for a few years in the late eighties and I'll take the City the way it is now, thank you. I think the majority of New Yorkers feel the same. The city has gone from one of the most dangewous to one of the safest in that time. Are you part of the minority that thinks the city is worse off now?

Yes the city was in a financial crises in the 1970's. The main culprits were the social programs the city couldn't afford such as free college tuition and medical care for all. Taxes got out of control and the wealthy who didn't take advantage of these services but were the ones paying for them bailed out of the city. The one socialistic tradition that remains is rent regulation.

You say you have lived in other cities. How did you find renteng there as compared to NY?

Also, why haven't you purchased if you are coming from a position of strength? To have rented all this time makes no economic sense.

One last thing, if you think I'm some rich yuppie then let me tell you nothing is further from the truth. I'm just someone who feels the regs are making it harder, and more costly for me to get an apartment.

[NYCkid]

Originally posted by eastsidah:
NYCKid, You don't know me either, but you sure seem to know alot about me.

You comment about the starbucks wasn't lost on me. It sounds as if you resent the fact that the city is becoming less affordable while your income remains stagnent. I lived on the Upper West Side for a few years in the late eighties and I'll take the City the way it is now, thank you. I think the majority of New Yorkers feel the same. The city has gone from one of the most dangewous to one of the safest in that time. Are you part of the minority that thinks the city is worse off now?

Yes the city was in a financial crises in the 1970's. The main culprits were the social programs the city couldn't afford such as free college tuition and medical care for all. Taxes got out of control and the wealthy who didn't take advantage of these services but were the ones paying for them bailed out of the city. The one socialistic tradition that remains is rent regulation.

You say you have lived in other cities. How did you find renteng there as compared to NY?

Also, why haven't you purchased if you are coming from a position of strength? To have rented all this time makes no economic sense.

One last thing, if you think I'm some rich yuppie then let me tell you nothing is further from the truth. I'm just someone who feels the regs are making it harder, and more costly for me to get an apartment.

The only things that I know about you is what you said about yourself. You said that moved here a couple of months ago. Honestly, that is more than I need to know about you. I usually pay no mind to morons like you and I am wasting way too much of my time responding to you again.

What about my posts make you assume that my income is remaining stagnant? Again, you should stop making assumptions. You just sound like an arrogant pompous bitch.

Why I am renting is none of your business and I do not need outline my personal situation to you on this board. Do my political stances make me by default a charity case? I find that hilarious.

I never called you a rich yuppie, but I guess that is something that you are defensive of for whatever reasons. You are right on one thing, I hate Giuliani and what he did to this city. If, as you claim I am in the minority, so be it.

Instead of blaming regs for your inability to get an apt, maybe you should look deeper. Maybe it is your lack of resourcefullness, your limited income (which you actually seem to be claiming) or your lack of connections. Why do you live here anyway, considering that you are so hell-bent on changing things?

[eastsidah]

NYCKid, these issues are ones on which reasonable minds can differ. There is no need to use terms like "morons".

You mentioned you have lived in other cities. What was the rental market like in those towns compared to NYC?

Does anyone out there think that there is a city in the US with a more screwed up rental market than NYC? There isn't one and if you think that regs aren't playing a big part then please tell me why.