Rent Stabilization is the Savior of NYC Landlords!

Men should be more polite to women. No sweetie talk is necessary

1. it is a fantasy to think that rents across the board will come down if RS is abolished.
2. it is difficult if not impossible to argue that RS is a good idea if you were starting from scratch---but we're not.
3. there are many things that are not a good idea if you were starting from scratch. here are just a few: our military presence in Iraq, absurdly high defined benefit pension plans for municipal workers, tax deductability for home mortgage interest, etc.
4. the problem is how to fix some or all of the these situations without royally screwing people who made long term plans based on these plans.

66% of rental apartments in NYC are under some form of rent stabalization and are not part of the rental market. Rents will come down if supply increases relative to demand. Increasing rental apartment supply by 200% will not increase rental apartment demand by 200%.

How can you argue that rent stabilization does not increase market rents?

columbia - I think you read my comment out of context - I didn't say abolish RS and actually if you read that post and others you'll find that I think we should keep it - what I want to abolish is rich people having RS apartments -

ah---you are correct. my apologies...agree completely with you. unfortunately, cheating seems to have become a way of life these days so not sure how this could ever be effectively accomplished but i am all for it.

rental market is far from efficient (as so many of us here woefully lament!). apartments get priced on the margin based mostly on renters degree of patience and desperation. how would you even handle wholesale elimination of RS? landlord gets to price unit based on so called fair market value? wouldn't that start at current rate (whatever the hell that may be?); apartment sits empty until so one either comes along and pays that (so no net savings, right?) or goes through a series of price cuts? given the current economic climate, can you really make an argument that this would be a beneficial situation for anyone?

RS could be removed gradually. Start lowering the income cutoff. Start at 100K per household member as the cutoff. Gradually decrease it. This would ease the supply onto the market starting with the people who can most easily move to market rents.

columbia - I miss your point about "cheating" - the rich are not cheating by staying in there RS apartments - they are well within the law to stay until they die and to pass it on to a family member.

per 23 min ago.
1. I disagree in part (when people say rents will go down if RS were abolished they mean that market rate rents will go down they rarely mean rents overall will go down as clearly rents overall will go up if RS were abolished) - but for sure market rate rents in Manhattan proper fall, rents in Harlem go up overall but market rate rents in Harlem go down, all rents in the Bronx go down - plenty of people will leave NYC if they no longer have a sweet deal on their rent - I think it's important to note that many will leave NYC if RS were abolished - even you claim that tens of thousands will be displaced, many of them won't land in NYC and vacancy will increase - for many the only reason they keep an apartment in NYC is because it's cheap, if they were forced to pay market rates they would give it up and more supply would be added.
2. This is your best point - we're in this too deep - abolishing it would be the worst thing we can do.

chasing: so now you've jumped from 66% of rental stock to gradual easing? how much would that lower market rents?

jazz: meant that if law was changed, people would start to cheat on their income verification.

" how would you even handle wholesale elimination of RS? landlord gets to price unit based on so called fair market value? "

This seems to work in the other 98% of the US just fine. Why not give it a try in NYC?

Here is what you are ignoring if you think rents won't drop: A substantial portion (say 5-10% as a guess) of cheap rent-stabilized apartments are pied-e-terres or seasonal or just plain rented by people who don't live here anymore. If those became market rentals, they would simply not renew their leases, thereby freeing up thousands or even tens of thousands of apartments for NYC dwellers.

Is there anyone on SE who does not know someone who does not live in NYC but still has a RS apartment here?

"abolishing it would be the worst thing we can do."

Why?

chasingwamus - I believe your theory is the general consensus of people in the middle (meaning not right or left) of this argument. I hope that over time RS is phased out in a sensible and compassionate way. I would argue that we keep the $2K level for vacancy decontrol (unlike many I don't think a vacant unit should automatically be decontrolled), keep the $175K level for luxury decontrol but eliminate the fact you need both $175K and $2K for luxury decontrol. I think you require all RS tenants to live in the apartments 10 months a year and not 6. I think you stop allowing people to pass them down to future generations. I think anyone who owns or rents other property should lose their RS apartments. All of these tweaks protect the people who really need RS and will allow for others to still find and benefit from an RS apartment for years.

can we agree that you made up the number of 5-10%? if the number were 5%, and "tens of thousands" were freed up; ie. 50,000? that would mean that there are 1 million rent stabilized apartments under consideration.

while we're busy making up numbers, supposing only 50% of those people could afford to stay with the new rent (which I still don't understand how it would be arrived at). So, you're proposing displacing 500,000 families? Never mind the politics of that, are you really OK with snapping your fingers and saying, screw you to 500,000 families?

"Never mind the politics of that, are you really OK with snapping your fingers and saying, screw you to 500,000 families?"

Yes.

You also have to remember, it wouldn't happen overnight. They would have until the end of their lease, and the phase-out process could allow for a gradual return to market rates over, say, a three-year period.

NYCMatt - imagine the mayhem - seriously - think about it - your grandmother has made life decisions (rightly or wrongly who's to say) but she's made life decisions based on her $500/month rent - now her landlord is raising her rent to $4K. You don't have room in your apartment for her and your wife's parents too who will also be displaced. Neither couple has enough money to pay for movers. Where are they going to go? 980,000 apartments could become vacant in one day or over two years. Who's going to renovate them, where are we gong to get the moving vans to move people, where will these people move perhaps 3 million people could be displaced (certainly many will stay and pay market but what if half have to move - do you really think it's healthy for us if 1.5MM people have to move over a two year time horizon? If they've all got to move out there aren't enough vacant apartments to house them. The program is too massive, too many people depend on it not only financially but emotionally.
Haven't you ever seen an RGB meeting. Some of these tenants turn into animals over a $30/month rent increase, do you really think some of them won't take to the streets with guns? Do you really think some tenants won't sit in "their" apartments and protect them with guns, do you really think some won't burn down the building because "if they can't have it no one can." You may think I'm being extreme with my predictions, but you don't know the RS tenants I do. Again think of the RGB meetings. The passion over this issue runs deeper than you are assuming. As far as the tenants are concerned you are stealing their home - if they're right or wrong it doesn't matter - that's there perception and it will lead to extreme behaviors.

"that would mean that there are 1 million rent stabilized apartments under consideration."

Right, there are about 1 million RS apartments in NYC, as per the survey link I posted earlier.

There are many thousands that are not primary residences, how many who knows (as I said, my guess was 5-10% and I admitted it was a guess), but most of those would be freed up, at NO HARM to the renters, if they went to market value, since they don't live there full time.

You are way wrong if you think 500,000 families could be displaced. Over half are outside Manhattan, where RS rents and market rents are not much different, there would be minimal impact on renters in the outer boroughs. And there are many RS apartments in Manhattan that rent for less then their RS maximum rent (you sign a rider to get the lower rent). Many would reamin tin their former RS apts at the same (or lower) rents, some would remain and pay more rent, some renters without kids at home would move from their 3 br RS apt to a 1 br at the same rent. I am not going to cry for them.

And since leases renew over 12-24 months, the impact would be spaced out over time.

And "price discovery" happens in apartment rents all over the country, I am surprised you think it would be hard for landlords to set rents in a free market. It's easy, you offer it at a certain rent, if nobody rents it, you lower the price.

Won't happen
Shouldn't happen
90-95% of rent stabilized rates are the market rates anyway

The housing market "screws" everyone who can't afford it, including me and you. Why are we deciding to subsidize housing benefits for such an arbitrary group? I could understand it if society said we should subsidize housing for WW2 vets, or productive artists, or some other objective group that you could argue deserved some slack. But the current system is just wrong.
I will be "screwed" if my rents go up beyond my income, or if I am layed off and can't find another job. Why should I pay more rent now to make sure some other guy is guaranteed affordable housing forever?

Lezmon - do you have any data to back up your interesting claim?

Oh for God's sakes. Boston eliminated rent stabilization several years ago, and none of these nightmare scenarios ever came to pass. Yes, I realize there were significantly fewer RS in Boston than in NYC, but there's also an appreciably smaller overall apartment inventory, so the "displacement" problems would have been in the same proportion (if anything, WORSE for Boston).

Still, the nightmare scenario never happened in Boston. Nor would it happen here.

So Grandma made life decisions based on an unsustainable reality. So did millions of welfare recipients. But at some point, we have to pull people away from the public teat. Yes, it'll sting at first, but in the end it's in the best interests of everyone.

Time for some new decisions.

If people REALLY have no place to go, there's public housing. Yes, it sucks. But it's better than being homeless. Or, they might have to do what everyone else in America does, and work harder for a nicer home.

Your examples of how RGB tenants turn into "animals" only strengthens my argument. The sooner we abolish RS and eliminate this potential powderkeg, the better.

modern: agree that many RS apartments in the outer boroughs are near market rate but the ones who aren't are generally elder people who have lived in their apartment for decades. Let's say that 10% of 500,000 units are elderly tenants in the outer boroughs who couldn't afford the increases - where are 50K-100K elderly people going to go and why would you want to enact legislation that forces elderly people on to the streets? That would just mean that the city would have to find shelters for 75K people and at $3,000/month (the current rate for a shelter) it's just bad public policy. We can let the poor stay in their cheap apartments or we can house them for $3,000/month. I'm for letting them keep their apartments.

"90-95% of rent stabilized rates are the market rates anyway"

Fine. Then there should be no opposition to wiping away the RS laws.

I'm rent stabilized, it works for me.
But you want to throw out grandma, what an asshole. What happens to her anyway ?

"I could understand it if society said we should subsidize housing for WW2 vets, or productive artists, or some other objective group that you could argue deserved some slack."

I couldn't understand it at all. We're ALL special. Why limit subsidized housing to WWII vets or so-called "productive" artists? Why not teachers? Postal workers? Policemen and firemen? CEOs of nonprofits? Nurses? Daycare providers? Magazine editors? Actors? Television news anchors? Stagehands? Construction workers?

"But you want to throw out grandma, what an asshole. What happens to her anyway ?"

She moves to Florida. Or she moves in with her children.

chasingwamus -you say " Why are we deciding to subsidize housing benefits for such an arbitrary group?" you miss the point - we are not deciding to do this - it has already been decided. We're trying to figure out the best way to make lemonade from these lemons. Making nearly 1MM apartments into market rate units is just not sound public policy, it's not humane, and it's also not a good use of taxpayer dollars (as I've said before $3,000/month for shelters for the displaced).

Agreed that the system sucks. Agreed that it puts an unduly burden on the young. Agreed that it's not perfect and city's without it are better off. So I think we should get rid of it, but do it over 30 to 50 years starting with the people who need it the least.

Why not teachers? Yes
Postal workers? Yes
Policemen and firemen? Yes
CEOs of nonprofits? No
Nurses? No
Daycare providers? Yes
Magazine editors? no
Actors? No
Television news anchors? No
Stagehands? No
Construction workers? No

NYCMatt - why must it all be done at once - why not do it over time?

NYCMatt
3 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

"But you want to throw out grandma, what an asshole. What happens to her anyway ?"

She moves to Florida. Or she moves in with her children.

funny

NYCmatt -"I couldn't understand it at all. We're ALL special. Why limit subsidized housing to WWII vets or so-called "productive" artists? Why not teachers? Postal workers? Policemen and firemen? CEOs of nonprofits? Nurses? Daycare providers? Magazine editors? Actors? Television news anchors? Stagehands? Construction workers?"

Couldn't agree more - governments should not play favorites (that's why I think it's crazy that cops and teachers get placards that give them free parking in the city - what is it about teaching and police work that make it more difficult for them to ride public transport than the rest of us) - anyway, for RS tenants the government favorites have already been picked and they already have their housing. The question is now what do we do.

Jazz, read my above posts. I suggested phasing it out over a 3-year period.

Lezmon, you just proved my point. So YOU don't believe that CEOs of nonprofits and nurses should get subsidized housing, but I do. There will always be disagreement on "who" is "deserving". It's inherently unfair to all, so it should be abolished.

"She moves to Florida. Or she moves in with her children.

funny"

I wasn't trying to be funny. It's what Grandmas across the country do. I don't see why New York City grandmas should be any different. As I've said before, no one has a birthright to this city. Once you can no longer afford it, move on.

NYCMatt - to me 3 years is "all at once" - how can a society handle normal movings in and out plus tens if not hundreds of thousands more per year? Where will the poor people go? There aren't enough shelters in the country for them let alone in NYC.

Jazz, I agree except I would remove stabilization over a much shorter timeframe. People have an incredible ability to adapt and if it means grandma has to reconcile with thier children and get them to help, or move in with three other grandmas and move to a place with lower costs of living, they will find a way. Everyone else does.

Here's a good start for those who would be "displaced":

http://www.affordablesearch.com/

"Where will the poor people go?"

I hate to sound heartless, but that's not my problem. Nor is it the problem of the millions of market-rate renters working their asses off, forced to pay higher rents because "poor people" need an "affordable" place to live.

OK, so no exceptions for ww2 vets, etc. My point was that if Government was going to play favorites with housing (like it does with a lot of other things) then at least make it based on something objective and defined.

"Let's say that 10% of 500,000 units are elderly tenants in the outer boroughs who couldn't afford the increases - where are 50K-100K elderly people going to go and why would you want to enact legislation that forces elderly people on to the streets?"

Easy. Rental vouchers for the needy (only!) during a 5 or 10 year transition period. If you truly believe elderly renters should not have to move, the City should issue them vouchers (asset/income-based) to pay part of their increased rent. Note I included "assets" since many elderly have low "reported" incomes as they are retired. This is the major flaw with luxury decontrol, it is easy to stay under the $175k limit yet still have millions in assets.

My grandma had to move out of her house because she was too old and fragile to use the stairs and manage the maintenance and get help if she needed it. Should we have raised taxes on everyone to provide her with a 24 hour nurse and helper?

Unfortunately I've got to run - but in conclusion I think the idea of eliminating RS over a couple year period is unneeded. Consider that we've got 10,000 units for sale right now and prices are getting crushed. I would say that the majority of contract signings today are getting done at 25% off from the top.
Imagine what would happen if just 50,000 rent stabilized units were to flood the market in a year or two. That's only 5% of the total amount of RS units. These 50,000 units would help bridge the divide between market and stabilized rents. It also lets most people keep their home. What it doesn't do is allow rich people to stay, people to keep their second homes etc. 50,000 units will accomplish your goals and I would ask that you really consider this theory. We need just eliminate the most egregious of the injustices here to really make a difference.
Happy 4th everyone - God Bless America.

Yes, Chasing, we should have.

Not only that, but the taxpayers should have also footed the bill for an apartment for her at the Essex House.

"but that's not my problem." - it becomes your problem when you have to house them for $3,000/month with your tax dollars.

Some of you have NO family and no family values. Throwing out grandparents. Killing off veterans. Alll in the name of more kids going to NYU subsidized by their parents and then taking investment banking jobs.

No one is saying people HAVE to leave "their" homes. If they can afford the market rent, they can stay.

"Some of you have NO family and no family values. Throwing out grandparents. Killing off veterans. Alll in the name of more kids going to NYU subsidized by their parents and then taking investment banking jobs."

On the contrary, we DO. If my grandmother could no longer afford her apartment, I absolutely would either welcome her into my home or pay her market-based rent.

And nowhere in this thread did anyone suggest KILLING OFF anyone. Stop being a drama queen.

And BTW, the cost of housing vouchers for the needy elderly would be offset by the increased property tax revenue the City would receive as RS apartment buildings are reassessed upward in value.

ps: vouchers should NOT let a senior citizen keep the 3 bedroom apartment they had when their kids were young. We need to free up those apartments for young families,

Bnestor - there are NYU kids living in rent stabilized apartments while families of five pay market rents for studios.

""but that's not my problem." - it becomes your problem when you have to house them for $3,000/month with your tax dollars."

I don't know where that number is coming from.

I refer you again to http://www.affordablesearch.com/

This is like some nightmare where we want New Yor City to become a place for childless couples and gays who have no responsibilities. Instead of longer term and diverser tenants.

Universities are taking up more land and that is driving up rents and making the city filled with more younger people who will just leave after a few years. They are not voters.

"This is like some nightmare where we want New Yor City to become a place for childless couples and gays who have no responsibilities. Instead of longer term and diverser tenants."

No.

The "nightmare" is forcing childless couples and gays to finance the lifestyles of the "diverser" (sic) tenants who can't (or won't) pull their own economic weight.

I would be generous and let all remaining Spanish-American War and World War I vets (and widows) remain rent-stabilized.

And don't laugh, there are still Civil War widows around, even though one died last year:

"When he offered to leave his land and home to her if she would marry him and care for him in his later years, she said yes. She was 19; he was 86."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/obituaries/articles/2008/08/20/maudie_white_hopkins_93_was_a_widow_of_a_confederate_army_soldier/

I'm with the people where who want to just phase it out by not allowing people to let it be in herited and anyone making more than $175000 or owning another place or living out side the city for more than 2 months or owning over $2 million of cash. Anyone else should stay. The rest of this new special interest groups will have to wait their turn.

EastAmzer I agree there is definitely a gentrifier short-term agenda here for those against what has been working for so many for so long.

"EastAmzer I agree there is definitely a gentrifier short-term agenda here for those against what has been working for so many for so long."

But it has been working AGAINST so many more. That's the problem.

WHAT?? We have 8 or 9 million people in NYC and prosperity is good. Things work. Voters re-elected our last two mayors for their maximum terms because things do work. Maybe it doest work for nonvoters and they don't matter.

10041, what's your point?

No one said "things" aren't working. I said RS works AGAINST a great many more people than it benefits.

" The "nightmare" is forcing childless couples and gays to finance the lifestyles of the "diverser" (sic) tenants who can't (or won't) pull their own economic weight. "

Are you suggesting elimination of the childless couples and The Gays?

Heavens no!

Who would be around to actually foot the bill for everyone else???

WHERE IS Rhino86?

NYCMatt $3k it is.http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=2719

Jazz, that has nothing to do with RS, and everything to do with NYC's welfare state gone completely out of control.

Two separate issues that need immediate correction.

NYCMatt - destabilizing everything causes homelessness and whether or not it's $3K or $2K to house these families why would you want to create a system that puts them on government housing rolls? You can't ignore the fact that many don't have family or wont go to family. You can't ignore the fact that many don't have $2,000 to pay for movers to move them to Buffalo. You just don't seem willing to admit that destabilize everyone is 1. overkill 2. going to create a bigger problem than already exists.
Your methods will lead to a situation worse than the one you're trying to solve. Your "cure" is worse than the disease. Really think it though. I understand your admiration for free market principle, they have gotten our country to the top of the food chain, but tearing off this band aid is not the solution. These rules are asinine. They are backwards. They do everything a government shouldn't do. They couldn't be more wrongheaded, but getting rid of them over a 3 year period won't make you happier. You'll just complain about why we're housing homeless people in housing for $3,000/month that they use to pay $500/month for.
And again - there will be a violent vigilantly revolt if we were to destabilize - you can't ignore this real threat.

Jazzman, there is no reason why government should be supporting ANYONE. That is a separate issue altogether. If you can't support your own family, your children should be handed over to foster care until you get back on your feet.

I'm not "ignoring" the fact that many "don't" have family or "won't" go to family. I'm acknowledging the fact that if people can't afford rent for their families, they either hand their children over to people who CAN provide for them, or they move to a more affordable neighborhood or city. And spare me the whining about "moving costs". If you're that down on your luck, you sell everything of value, pack the rest up in a $19.95 U-Haul van, and set out to find your new home.

Sometimes tearing off the Band-Aid is the ONLY way the wound will heal. We've given this particular Band-Aid close to 60 years, and it's only getting worse.

"And again - there will be a violent vigilantly revolt if we were to destabilize - you can't ignore this real threat."

That's why we have a National Guard. Shoot to kill, no questions asked.

Don't ask, expel.

No, not really. If they can afford the new rent, they're more than welcome to stay.

matt, what's your game? you don't believe this shit you're spouting do you? what's your beef? sounds like you gotta it made. what the fuck do you care about about the rest of it? something smells.

My "game" is to level the playing field and provide equal access to housing and opportunities for ALL people, without government intervention.

instead of having your 1,700 sq ft, how much more do you figure you would have if the world went according to matt? and, by the way, something tells me that sarah palin is not gonna be a big fan of yours enjoy what you've got ( if even a fraction of your happy horseshit is ture) and stop trying to take stuff away from others. its disgusting.

watch out buddy...because when sarah is president, you're screwed.

how do you feel about the fact that the resident village idiot on these boards agrees with you?

No need to call me sweetie.
Somehow, your attitude against average NYers, against the elderly, against Veterans, against family stability, I suspect you are alone? single? no lady in your life? no nearby family of your own?

"stop trying to take stuff away from others. its disgusting."

MY POINT EXACTLY.

RS tenants are essentially TAKING from market-rate tenants by bidding up the price of rent. And in many buildings, they're forcing many landlords to operate at a loss ("taking" from them).

Debbie: "Somehow, your attitude against average NYers, against the elderly, against Veterans, against family stability ..."

I AM an "average" New Yorker, and I champion their cause. What I'm "against" are New Yorkers who are "taking" from other New Yorkers in the form of subsidized housing.

And where do you get that I'm somehow "against" the elderly, veterans, and family "stability"?

What I'm "against" is anyone being given an unfair advantage over others. Period.

Matt is projecting his fears and other well-deserved feelings of failure on society's fringiest.

And with good cause -- he's stuck in a dying industry, locked into a near-lifetime of mortgage payments. Everything he says is a tantrum to support the fantasy-world of mid-20th century America that he'd like to believe in.

For example, the notion that people actually pay off their 30-year fixed mortgages by the time they retire. That hasn't been true at least since fixed mortgages had 25-year terms. And for that matter, fixed mortgages? Yes, Matt, we know. You're going to pay off YOUR 30-year fixed before you retire. You plan.

Oh, yeah, Deb: he's that way (musical), and terrified at the thought of having to move back to western Pennsylvania where they keep them down. Or, worse, having to move back to LA where they're all major assholes just like him, but have the act perfected in a way that he can't quite compete. Believe it or not.

fear fear fear

Oh Alan -- nice try.

I just refinanced -- my mortgage is a 15-year.

And my only fear is the creeping cancer of socialism in this great city, in this great nation.

"shoot to kill" - you come up with fake solutions to real problems - you can't gloss over this - NYC would be worse after destabilization.

That's what they said about Boston.

Not too familiar with the destabilization in Boston, but from what I gather the number of units that were destabilized were significantly smaller (both on a total number and as a percentage of total units basis) than we have here. Many of my concerns are based solely on the depth and magnitude of our RS system here.

Per http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/categories/housing-affordability
Boston ranks extreme unaffordability is 2 places (out of 50) away from NY's. So it would seem that getting rid of rent controls didn't deliver the wildly lower rents (relative to income) that you insist would occur, Matt.

who's they matt? another piece of bullshit made up by matt the bullshit artist. as i have said before, its people like you that make me
embarrassed to be part of this city.

It's people like Matt who make me embarrassed that people like Matt are part of that city.

"Boston ranks extreme unaffordability is 2 places (out of 50) away from NY's. So it would seem that getting rid of rent controls didn't deliver the wildly lower rents (relative to income) that you insist would occur, Matt."

So then why all the opposition to erasing laws that arguably don't really make all that much of a difference?

"It's people like Matt who make me embarrassed that people like Matt are part of that city."

If I'm so embarrassing, then stay in NJ, Alan.

I'd really like to stay here in London, but I'm afraid I'll be returning to my native island instead of this one. Sorry to disappoint, MainlandMatt.

"So then why all the opposition to erasing laws that arguably don't really make all that much of a difference?" ... never have stupider words been typed. Why the opposition to causing massive displacement and social disruption, for no gain whatsoever?

Are television networks that random and lacking in cohesive strategy as well? No wonder you're running scared.

Oh Alan.

Go eat another crumpet and get back to me when you get over yourself.

matt baby---shove it...you never answered my first question or any other that i have ever posed to you. you got the world by the balls according to you so what the fuck is your beef?

CC baby ... I believe I answered your question. Re-read my posts. (Hint: use the "scroll" function)

hey---let me make it easy for you....shove it up your ass. no scrolling necessary.

(Matt, Hint: use the "troll" function)

Alan, shouldn't you be attending to your boyfriend?

I don't really know what "boyfriend" means in the hep new slang that you kids use, so I can't answer that.

Does it have something to do with people who repeatedly post inflammatory remarks on internet discussion boards to get a rise out of annoying everyone else and disrupting the flow of conversation? Like about throwing poor little grandmas out into the streets of Boca Raton where all their friends and neighbors don't live?

It has something to do with reacting to name-calling.

so...matt, if i call you a shit eating piece of crap..then i'm someone's boyfriend?

and if you suggest than tens of thousands of people should be thrown out of their homes, what is the correct ethnic/sexual slur to use in relationship to you. other than shit eating piece of crap.

I left Curbed to come to discussions like this? Anyone use a different board they could recommend?

why don't you check out the thread on paint finish?

unfortunately, matt is an expert on that as well.

Does curbed have discussions? commenting on blog posts doesn't really lead to discussion because of the short shelf life. But I agree that NYC could use a serious, dedicated, moderated discussion forum.