More of New York City's middle-class tenants, their jobs gone, are falling behind on rent,

Oh, BTW, as you can see, back then people wee paying 10% of of vacant market value for RS occupied units. It's scary what they have been paying lately: in a lot of cases it seems like close to 70%: another sign of on overinflated market driven by excess cash flow lending wise.

Wow, I came late, but what a great late thread.
Being a renter right now, I can say this...if my landlord doesn't do his part to keep the building running (i.e.the trains running on time) then why should I give a shit about how I treat "his building"?

Can I ask you something dwell and Matt, the last time you rented a car, did you change the oil or wash it?

Matt, you make me sick, you classist pig. Scum like you ruins NYC. Move to Darien, CT

Upperwest -- your analogy of renting a car versus renting an apartment is illogical. More accurate, however, would be to compare renting a car (very short-term) to "renting" a dwelling (hotel room). In both cases, no one is expected to clean or maintain either the car or the hotel room.

You may, however, compare renting an apartment (long-term lease) to leasing an automobile (also long-term lease), both cases of which the leasee is expected to maintain the automobile or dwelling.

On a more personal note, Upperwest, how exactly have I "ruined" NYC?

"Grossly inflated price" or not, it's the price that both buyer and seller agreed upon. Why do you suppose MetLife was looking to unload the complex in the first place?

Quite often, what appears to be a "well maintained" building isn't as healthy as you thought, once you look at the whole picture, including financials.

Well--for starters you're a know it all who appears to know very little except those facts that you make up to support your bogus arguments.

When my wife and I got married in 1991, we rented a 1-bedroom apartment in Yonkers for $850 (today the same apartment is probably $1,300). Our combined income was about $140,000. She walked to the train station and I drove a 5-year old Nissan Sentra that was paid off and required minimal insurance. For these hot shots paying mega thousands of dollars a month so they can live their Manhattan lifestyle fantasy, I have ZERO sympathy.

Hey prettykitty, we respect that you saved money by living in Yonkers and manage your money well. Most of us here don't have an interest in living in Yonkers as can be our preference.. I don't think it would be right of Manhattanites to look down on Yonkers' people, but be careful if you are going to pick a fight.

Blatant classism, (rich people live clean, whereas poor people live like slobs who can't take care of themselves) is even more ridiculous than my super stretch car rental statement (which of course is ridiculous...but hey, I know the story behind it, but not the details...I don't really want to know the details.)

If you lease a car, will you change the oil more often than the manual tells you to, just to be safe? I do.

You've ruined nyc because I've stretched even further and am assuming that you're the jackass type of person who thinks that affluent people live better because they are "better"

And further, anyone who says, "i know the story, but not the details, and I don't want to know" but a moment before was referencing that exact story...is a moron.

It's nobody's right to live anywhere, period. I don't get to shake my fists at the sky because I don't live in the Apthorp.

Unless, of course, it's the law. Boo, you can shake your fists at the sky, but what would be the point, right?

yes...that's the rub, isn't it? as a number here have posted earlier, if you don't like/agree with the law, work to change it --don't ignore it and use excuses to support your position.

You're right about RS units - but I don't think that's what UWrenter is talking about. As far as the PCV/ST Tischman debacle, Tischman was well within its right to try to interpret the law however it wanted to. A judge has tossed out Tischman's interpretation and now it will cost them. That's the way the law works, and there's nothing wrong with it.

true....but....

threatening senior citizens with eviction and/or drastic rent increases may be their right but hopefully we can all agree that it's not right.

You don't find their purging efforts at all unseemly?

There is a historical reason that landlords pay treble damages in such cases. They tend to try to interpret the law the way that is most advantageous for themselves. Basic precepts of public policy (not to mention ethics) restrict certain self-interested behaviors, and when necessary, laws are enacted to enforce those. Treble damage provisions are usually found in laws that aim to protect those at greatest risk. Historically, the law has viewed the tenant as an unequal participant in the housing process, and has thus aimed to protect. Whether those laws currently promote a workable system is another issue.

But yes, I concede that UWrenter is speaking more broadly. Perhaps that was a reaction to Matt, however? Extremes can elicit extremes.

Sure, I do find their efforts unseemly, but the key is that the law cannot really "prevent" unseemly things from happening, it can only redress them through damages - and in this case, treble damages, which serve to be at least a deterrent to the behavior. Law and ethics are two very different things, and I think it's too much to assume that all landlords will be ethical.

i think that's kind of where we started with matt telling us tough luck to renters---if you don't like it, leave. try that approach in any other business with your customers.

If you don't like restaurants that routinely server up botulism and e. coli, eat elsewhere. Nobody has a right not to die when they're buying food from a business.

words to live by, alanhart. if i cross-stitched i'd put it on a pillow.

It IS effectively tough luck for renters in this situation. You can opt to challenge your landlord in court for whatever damages you have incurred, but if you don't want to, you always have the option to leave. The court is notoriously slow, and it takes its time to right wrongs. As a tenant, you have to decide whether you're willing to incur the expense (in both time and money) to do so. I may not like it, but this is the way it is.

If you're the only store in town that sells hammers, and you're price gouging for your hammers, I may not like it, but I could be forced to buy from you. Even if I don't buy the hammer from you, it could well be the case that somebody else will. The difference between a landlord and a store owner selling (or renting) something is that the landlord only needs to make a sale once a year.

but then, of course, renters will retaliate in any and all ways they can...

Okay, alanhart, what is the law going to do for you if you DO eat at a restaurant and get E-coli? It's going to give you the opportunity to sue for damages. It might close the restaurant for a week until it cleans itself up. But if you think health code alone is going to save every single person from getting sick in the first place, have I got a bridge to sell you...

Does any law save every single person? Is that the goal of law? Or is it to reduce and mitigate injustices and socially undesirable behavior?

Sure, they'll retailiate, and it's within the right of the landlord to keep your security deposit. It's nobody's individual RIGHT to live in someone else's building/unit, and the law is there to enforce MINIMUM standards between the landlord/tenant contracts that DO occur. The reality, is however, that the law is slow and by the time you get your day in court, you probably will have incurred some kind of inconvenience/lost time/lost money that you cannot recover, even after the court fight.

compared to other countries this nation has appalling rental laws.

but boo, i'm not sure you are correct. how do you then interpret anti-warehousing laws, anti-discrimination laws, laws to prevent landlords from buying a townhouse and kicking all the tenants out. You may have to pay whatever the landlord asks for for a renewal lease, or move, but there are plenty of laws regarding the right to rent a unit.

and to say, in the case of the renewal, that if you don't like it you can leave, is technically correct, but ethically flawed. laws are, hopefully, enacted and enforced to correct behaviours that run counter to public policy concerns. many public policy concerns stem from ethical considerations.

the law is both a deterrent against certain types of behavior and to some extent, retributive. It won't prevent a wacko landlord from jacking up your rent while leaving the building to rot at the beams. Look at Qwerty. We are largely in agreement that what some landlords do is mean, and in some cases despicable and anti-social, but they inherently hold the upper hand.

yes, we probably do agree on most aspects of the issue. i can't imagine what it would feel like to have been a tenant destabilized last year, after living in a home for however long, to now learn that there may have been no legal justification for that upheaval.

AR, You're right about those laws - but those are laws that protect the status quo; it affords existing tenants some protection against a new owner stepping in, but it doesn't prevent the landlord from renegotiating in his/her favor at renewal. This all goes out the door for RS laws.

I agree that TS should be forced to pay not an inconsequential amount of damages for being on the wrong side of the law on this one.

Nicepad - I am not saying you should not live in Manhattan if that's where you want to be. But committing to a lease of $5,000 a month when you can't even cover more than a few months of living expenses with your savings is ridiculous.

but ridiculous was the new reasonable...note this concurrent string with comment that how could price fall further.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/11024-my-son-likes-this

so, in two years we'll be reading about this guy who bought a place based on how could it possibly go lower?

"threatening senior citizens with eviction and/or drastic rent increases may be their right but hopefully we can all agree that it's not right."

Real estate is a business. If the landlord can't make ends meet because the revenue stream is too thin, he raises the rent. If the government forces him to keep the rents artificially low, he has to resort to other means to get revenue back in line with expenses.

This isn't a charity. No one has a "right" to live anywhere, particularly in homes they don't actually OWN themselves. It's a sad fact of life, but rents rise. They always have, and they always will. If you haven't allowed for those rent increases during your retirement, you have to find someplace more affordable.

actually, in most countries residential real estate is not just a business. studied sociology much?

hey...read the RS laws. those tenants sure as hell have the right to stay in their apartments. and its right.

p.s. you do underscore the silver lining in the credit situation which is landlords are going to get squeezed. but, of course, in your model then they should just cut back even further on services. wouldn't it be funny if we finally reached the tipping point where people starting moving out en masse because the hassles just weren't worth it anymore? pretty tough be in the landlord business with no tenants. can't relocate your lousy building to the south.

Well in most countries, you move out even further from the city center and commute to where you work. Also, in other places (I am thinking of Hong Kong, Singapore), you have a plethora of very well-off individuals who live in government housing because it's cheap, and they pass the lease on to their kids and family members.

CC, I don't see how this tipping point will happen on a city-wide basis...

no, neither do i but so much of what has happened in the last 6 to 12 months was inconceivable so, who knows? one thing for sure is that nyc landlords have never had to consider competitive pressure as relates to rents and services provided. to the extent that materializes, I think it will be a good thing.

now, its time for matt to tell us for the four hundredth time that RE is a business.

"wouldn't it be funny if we finally reached the tipping point where people starting moving out en masse because the hassles just weren't worth it anymore?"

And they would move to ... where?

Luckily, most of the prewar rental housing stock on UWS was bought for pennies over 20 years ago so the LLs aren't going to be squeezed that much. I think, by and large, that this stability has been good for the UWS - however much you may hate the rent-stabbies and RCs. HK, Sin have much more in the way of gov. subsidized units for sale as opposed to rent - having figured out that gov. shouldn't be in the RE biz as LLs.

tele commuting is becoming more of a reality than i ever would have dreamed. many companies have increasing difficulty recruiting people to manhattan. but, matt, in your world, who cares? let em go. soon, it will be you, the mayor and a bunch of people commuting in to wait on you hand and foot.

And how does not mowing the grass make you profitable? If you look at the people living in your building as rats you collect money from and thats all, then guess what...you turn them into rats who will treat YOUR building like crap. But if you try for some sort of community feel, perhaps they will actually give back...perhaps they will make sure their garbage is tied up correctly, which cuts down on the time and effort of cleanup on your part (which results in more money.)
Here's the main point: RE in NYC has been up up up, without any thought. A shithole could command a hell of a price! Now, it seems this truly was a bubble, and with people losing their jobs, moving out of NYC, there will be more supply, less demand. Perhaps landlords have to figure out a way to create more of a community in the building, make people happier (not giving shit away...mowing the grass isn't breaking the bank, but it goes a long way...) I'm not saying I have all the answers, I'm saying that looking at is as a business is fine, but perhaps it needs to be looked at as a small business as opposed to a conglomerate widget factory. Roll your sleeves up and go mow the grass yourself...(I know, I beat that example to death...I just enjoy mowing the lawn, what can I say.)

And as for my extreme comments above, it really rubs me the wrong way, the idea of "screw my tenants, gimme the money, someone else will pay for it"
And thank god, finally, it looks like that price is dropping enough that tenants can't just be looked at as shmuck rats...and yes, I'm a self-righteous fuck (as a guy in the airport once told me when I accused him of cutting the line.)

upperwestrenter, hope that felt good.

i have more than a bit of populist rage myself. life shouldn't just be about balance sheets and profits (not that those in economic power did so well recently even, or particularly, from that perspective).

I don't know what makes some people good renters and others not. I suspect that no matter how nicely kept a bldg is, some renters will just do what they want while others will genuinely care for the property.

I do know that very few people try to save their LLs $ on the heating bill out of consideration for the env. - all those open windows in the middle of winter really bug me.

it felt good, yes...although I know I'll get back to boiling point when the rebuttal comes and its, "business blah blah, where will they move blah blah, you don't get it cause you don't own a building blah blah"

ny10023, with steam heat, either it's on full-blast, or it's off. And in many cases (like mine), you live in a "hot" building, so that even with the radiators off, you need to open the windows.

I know, but trust me, if you are responsible for paying the bills directly, you investigate like mad to see if there's a fix to this. You do NOT open windows on a whim. Heating bills are crazy.

UWR: you are a conscientious tenant. Most are not, and would not be, regardless of whether their LLs kept up the building. I'll give you an analogy - ever look at the sh*t people throw everywhere in a "nice" nabe like most of the UWS? Dog poop, pee, litter - we all share the sidewalk and it hurts all of us if people litter.

10023, that's what is a bit ironic in the PCV/ST story. Impossible to generalize across all tenants, of course, and some of them can be cranky and demanding, but as a whole the old-time tenants here ARE careful of how they treat their living environment. Precisely because they feel that this has been a home, and not something transient. we don't have garbage everywhere (or didn't before the shift to NYU dorm), dog crap, and the like, not on the sidewalks within the complex at least. You get to know your neighbors here, just like in a coop. It has been an extremely friendly location that is good for both families and the elderly. Quite unique, actually.

ny10023, I am someone who's responsible for paying the heating bills (I'm the vice president of one building), and heating with steam is nearly impossible to regulate. The best we can do is to crank up the heat for the entire building to make sure the coolest temperature in the building doesn't dip below the city's minimum allowable temperature for the winter months. As a result, many residents (like myself) in the warmer apartments are forced to open the windows, even with our radiators off.

Right, but it's a puzzle to me why the NYC housing projects degenerated so quickly. You've got long-term stability in terms of LL, low rents. If you look at the much-maligned Amsterdam Houses on the UWS, the first families to move in were grateful & proud to live there. Did they lack housekeeping skills? Or did the NYCHA fail in screening later families?

NYCMatt - has your building done an investigation into new boiler systems & such?

10023, I'd be interested to know what proportion of the Amsterdam Houses stabilized housing is paid for by middle-class wage earners (versus those who are using government benefits to pay for the housing).

I'm asking this not to be insensitive, but it seems to me that RS housing in the far outer boroughs seem to have a much larger proportion of people who care for the buildings and who fall into the category of working-middle-class (as opposed to lower-middle-class). Take Starett City in Brooklyn, for example - those buildings are really well maintained and they definitely have a sense of community.

I think you have to put them into the proper categories...

Rent Stabilized (traditional sense), Mitchell-Lama, and then straight out projects...

Can be very different folks in these

Also, how can I forgot... the government "placement" agencies also often dictates who goes where. And then can put poorer folks in certain ones, etc...