Interesting article worth reading.

[MikeW]

Actually, I heard on the radio this morning that the Republicans are now making noises about weakening the laws. I looked for a copy of the report on the web, but couldn't find it. If it's true, this could be read a couple of ways:

1). The really want, and think they can, do it. Most likely they'd lower the threshold for high rent decontrol, and maybe high income decontrol also.

2). They want to counterbalance the Democrat push to remove the high rent decontrol, and are actually looking to maintain the status quo.

3). They're looking for something to start an argument with, in order to screw up the renewal.

I guess we'll know by Monday.

[MikeW]

An Update.

Here's the article: Link to article

[nycat]

I did. I don't know why it was removed.

Here's a link to an article in today's Albany Times Union: [url=[url=http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=141561&category=STATE&BCCode=&newsdate=6/10/2003]Times Union article[/url] ]Article[/URL]

It seems that Pataki and Bruno would like to see the end of rent regs after all (no surprise) and that Silver is arguing for more oversite on vacancy de-contol as opposed to its demise.

As we get closer to June 15, the less leverage we have to improve protections as the threat of the laws sunsetting will give the Republicans tremendous leverage. What happens if Silver won't compromise on vacancy decontrol and the republicans let the laws expire while claiming that the Democrats are at fault because they were being unreasonable.

It would be nice if vacancy decontrol was abolished, but it seems like a tall order considering the Republicans contol the Senate and Governorship. Instead we are probably going to end up with even fewer tenant protections. That was why I posted the question on why all the gnashing of teeth over high rent vacancy decontrol when it seems like its going to take decades for all regulated apartments to be decontroled in that manner. It will eventually be Republican hostility that kills tenent protections in New York, not vacancy decontrol.

<small>[ June 10, 2003, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: nycat ]</small>

[jot0n0]

And another article on the subject. Looks like thing are starting to get interesting.

NY Post, 6/11/03

[MikeW]

I'm getting the feeling the laws will expire, and that's when the games will really begin this time around.

Also if I'm not mistaken, the Legislature goes into recess for the summer on June 22nd.

[nycat]

Today's Post article mentions that Silver must sign off on any rent legislation, which is true. But if he doesn't sign off on the bill then the laws will expire and Bruno and Pataki will get what they truely want while making Silver look like he wouldn't cooperate.

If the laws sunset who says that they will ever get renewed? And if they do you can bet they will be a very watered down version of what we have now.

It's no surprise Bloomberg has taken the position he has. He's not in favor of the tenant protctions, but he gives lip-service in support and then claims it's not his fault if they expire because the power on this issue is in Albany and not with the City Council.

[MikeW]

Cat,

What you're not getting, or getting but not saying clearly, is that all three of them have to sign off on the renewal, or it's dead. If Bruno blocks it in the senate, Silver can jump up and down all he wants, and it's still dead. Pataki can veto it. The assembly would probably override, but, unless Bruno really got behind an override, the senate would probably let it die.

This is almost entirely an NYC issue. The suburbs and upstate don't care.

Mr Tenantnet is all behind getting on Silver's back, but he can't do it alone. And he can only put so much pressure on the other two, because he has other issues he has to deal with (budget, eduction, health care, eduction, etc., etc.). If he tries to hold everthing hostage to the rent laws, he may find himself losing control of the assembly (he faced a major palace coup late year).

[nycat]

Mike, what I was trying to point out is that the article makes it sound like Silver has equal power in this situation, which is not the case. Bruno and Pataki can float a watered down version of what we have now, say $1,500 threshold for vacancy decontrol along with whatever other changes they want (like lowering the income threshold to $100,0000 for example or ending succession rights). If Silver doesn't go along what can he do about it? Not sign off on the deal? If that happens then rent laws are dead and Bruno is doing handsprings while claiming it's Silver's fault that tenants lost their protections. Silver has two choices here, to take what Pataki and Bruno offer or to let the laws sunset. For the article to make it sound like he has an equal say is very misleading.

If TenantNet is right about Silver not rally caring about tenants then we are in real trouble. Picture this scenario: Bruno and Pataki offer something draconian, Silver says he cannot sign off on the bill because it essentially ends rent regulations and the laws sunset. Silver can then claim he fought the good fight, but it was the heartless Republicans fault that the laws expired. Bruno has nothing to worry about because he represents few to none protected tenants and Pataki can blame it on the squabiling legislature. And of course Bloomberg has the Urstadt (sp?) law to lay the blame on.

[MikeW]

Cat,

Yeah, that's about right.

Silver is probably talking out both sides of his mouth. He needs to show as pro tenant, since that's about 98% of his constituency. At the same time he likes to throw the LL lobby a bone or two, since they probably give him significant campaign contributions.

Bruno could probably care less about regulated renters. He, and all the Republics get boucoup bucks from the LLs, and the regulated renters are the voters who keep the Dems in control of the assembly. I think as a Republican, he probably has a philosophical bent against rent regulation. His only motivations for keeping the rent laws in place are, first, to protect the few Republican state sentators from the city (five I think), and second, it give him something to hold over Silver every couple of years.
Pataki could also care less about regulated renters. They reliabley vote against him. He's also trying to build up his conservative bonafides to try and wrangle a spot in the Bush administration. Killing a fifty year old regulatory regime that hurts property owners would go a long way toward getting him what he wants.

[MikeW]

Bobber,

I think I saw that article, I think it said that (in rough numbers from memory) about 100K units in total were lost from regulation since 97. About 30K of those were due to high rent deregulation and 2-3K due to high income deregulation. Most came out because the buildings had been converted to coops/condos, the the regulated tenants moved out (or bought, either way).

[nycat]

Bruno would love to see the regulations disappear, and he said as much back in '97. Does anybody seriously think he has undergone a change of heart?

Maybe Silver would like to se the laws expire as well. Like you said, it is something that gets held over his head every few years by Bruno for leverage. If the protections go away Silver won't lose his seat, especially if he can make it appear that it was the Republicans' fault. There are 2.3 milliion regulated tenants in the city-which might seem like a lot-but that leaves 5.5 million in the city who aren't, leaving us outnumbered 2 to 1 (8 to 1 for the entire state). Does anybody really think that at the end of the day the other 5.5 million reaaly care?

Another thing. Where is the Village Voice on this issue? I just picked up this week's copy and didn't see an article relating to thiss weeks vote. You would think that the Voice would be one publication that would be picking up the flag for tenants.

[TenantNet]

As you can imagine, things are a bit busy right now, so I won't go into a protracted reply. First, we occasionally remove messages for a variety of reasons. This is nothing new. The message Bobber referred to was a troll and it's gone. So Bobber, don't get bent out of shape.

Second, although much of this thread is an honest attempt to analyze of the situation (and not a troll), I disagree with some of the conclusions as politics in NY are not that black and white. There are very good reasons for Bruno and Pataki to not let regulations expire. Among them are six or so downstate Republican Senators, who would likely be history if the regs would expire (Vallella, Padavan, etc.) And if they go so does the Republican control of the Senate. That's why they let Roy Goodman pander to his rent-controlled constituents for many years. There are many more gray areas than you might expect and the playing field is more evenly balanced than often portrayed. It's more chess than football and it's all about posturing and maneuvering. As for Silver's core constituency, it's mostly co-opers on Grand Street and they're fairly conservative. That's his power base, so helping tenants might be giving consideration to the constituencies of his NYC Assemblymembers - who benefit from his largesse and also keep him in power.

[nycat]

I don't see how my message was a troll, but whatever.

[MikeW]

Cat,

Ever since Julie Lobbia died, the Voice hasn't done much with housing. I think they tried to get another housing reporter, but he (I think it was a guy) must not of worked out. They seem to be too busy with national issues to bother with a city issue.

'Net,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Silver's district include Stuy Town. Stuy Town always struck me as the epicenter (or at least a major hotspot) of tenant activism, and it has enough people in it to make a political difference.

I also think as the Reps have been losing city senators they've been picking up some of the out of city seats. The loss of Goodman didn't hurt them.

I'd actually love to see what would happen to Lizzy Kruger if the regulations did die off and take alot of the old line regulated renter democrats with them. Those apartments would likely be backfilled with professionals with more money, who might be more incline to vote Republican. Then again, that district has big gender issues also.
This, BTW, would be the biggest long term strategic reason for the Reps to kill rent regulation. Doing so would significantly change the political demographics of the city. The main groups driven out would likely be Democrate voter heavy, and the people replacing them, more Republican.