Shocking info about landlords

The author sets up "myths" that are not widely held beliefs, than provides dodgy and sparsely substantiated counterpoints to them. For example, we're told that landlords aren't making huge profits, and given as evidence that costs escalate each year. But do landlords routinely open their books for all to see? Absolutely not.

I've never heard anyone state a belief that Private Equity owns much in the way of RS apartments, but I have no sympathy for hobbyists who think they can one-up anyone by having some rental units. It's a business, with applicable public policy laws ... I wouldn't want hobbyists to buy nuclear power plants for the same reason, and if they suffer hardships, I wouldn't want public-safety regulations rolled back to help them out.

Who cares if they're minorities, who cares if they live in their buildings, who cares if they're individuals or corporate structures, etc. etc.?

Propagated by morons like the shady "working families" party, which is about as huge obstacle to working families as you can get.

WFP isn't my favorite today, because I love Mark Green and get the sense that DeBlasio is a smarmy hack (but we'll see). However, I don't see any evidence that they propagate any such myths about RS landlords.

you mean landlords are not secretive dark overlords who live in ivory towers?

secretive dark overlords who live under bridges, you mean. And I don't even want to think what they secrete.

"Who cares if they're minorities, who cares if they live in their buildings, who cares if they're individuals or corporate structures, etc. etc.?"

Everyone should care. If for the last 5 years expenses have gone up faster than revenues then we have a big problem. Building values are going down so owners can't refi to cover their operating losses. You can't set up a regulated market then force the principals into bankruptcy. The law requires the gvmt to give rent increases that are big enough to cover people's expenses.
Sooner than later, these owners are going to stop paying their property taxes and then what are we going to do? They fund a huge portion of the state's budget (I think it's 35% of the total tax revenue).
If you're making PE companies bleed that's not as big of deal because they can go raise more capital, but if you're making Jose Lopez bleed then you're a jackass. If Jose wants to invest his money and bust his ass then the government shouldn't out of one side of it's mouth raise his property taxes by 20% his water by 15% etc etc and from the other side of his mouth let the guy raise his rents by only 3%. You can only suck so much blood from these stabilized owners. They can only provide housing at 1970 prices for so long, eventually they bleed to death and with the falling of building values and the lack of refinancing available there is sure to be a lot of blood on the streets unless the government lowers their expenses or allows them to raise rents more.

"WFP isn't my favorite today, because I love Mark Green and get the sense that DeBlasio is a smarmy hack (but we'll see). However, I don't see any evidence that they propagate any such myths about RS landlords."

No, just making the parallel. They propagate myths about working families.

WFP = ACORN (with some help from unions). Besides being the scam agency everyone knows, they are a major landlord themselves.

Jazzman, you more or less avoided answering the questions quoted in the first part of your last reply. But to your reply I say "open books, please".

nyc10022, what property does WFP own?

wtf you talkin bout jman--most landlords are LOWERING rents..they're not chafing against the limited increases they are allowed visa RS laws..they are invested in bad assets..they made bad investment decisions...they bought assuming that they would be able to easily rent at max RS allowed levels, and that they would ultimately see much of their stock go free-market, at which point they could jack rents into the stratosphere...well they fucked up..and now we're hearing talk of corporate welfare from an ayn rander...get real

alanhart - landlords give the banks and the city copies of their financial statements every year - what's your issue. You want them to give daily financial records?

ubottom -first - it's clear you haven't read the article - your views of landlords are not correct - only 15% of them have held their buildings fewer than 10 years - I'd bet that most landlords are raising rents but that's not my point (certainly market rate rents are falling, but many renters still saw rent increases and nearly all rent stabilized tenants saw rent increases this year - so because RS apartments are half of the rental pool if those half all saw increases and 20% of market rate units saw increases then more units saw increases than decreases) - but if it's true that landlords were indeed lowering rents that only furthers my point. Landlords are bleeding at the seems and unless the government either lowers their expenses or lets them increase their revenues we could have a big problem collect property taxes. I'm not asking for a bail out - in fact I'm against every bail out and have been from the start - what I'm telling everyone is that unless the RGB and government get together and reverse this trend that is bleeding landlords to death then we're going to have big problems.

this article is so slanted towards landlords that it makes me laugh. landlords are starving orphans coerced into ownership by scheming tenants looking to cheat them out of all their assets. so...if any of this were true, why didn't they all sell their buildings two years ago and before when they could. the long term ownership which they are using to support the idea of lack of return can just as easily support the concept of being a great investment.

"you more or less avoided answering the questions quoted in the first part of your last reply."

My point is that a lot of people care - the "pro tenant" crowd paints landlords as the rich, faceless, soulless, private equity companies. The the "pro tenant" crowd says "Oh they're so rich and oh they're making so much money and oh they are so greedy blah blah blah."
But in fact it's clear that owners are small time people who live in their buildings (that is they live in the same "deplorable" conditions as their tenants) - it's much harder for Americans to justify stealing from a minority owner who lives in his own building that it is to steal from some Billionaire Private Equity guy who lives in Israel.

All I'm saying is that if you raise a guy's property taxes by 20% every year and let him raise his rents by only 3% that eventually he'll be underwater. And then who's going to take over these properties? Only Private Equity companies could afford to do it and perhaps it's likely that no one would as they aren't profitable investments even if bought out of foreclosure.

so jman you propose rent regs that enforce increased rents (revenues)--or you propose reducing their taxes (expenses)--or subsidizing their operating expenses--did you throw atlas shrugged in the trash?---who cares how long these LL's have held these assets--what an irrelevant piece-and if they were prudent and a longtime holder they should nearly own those properties unless they refied cash out--now you want to help?-whenever, however they bought was a decision they made--now you want to conveniently throw atas shruygged in the trash and regulate to protect them because you want to protect their ability to pay taxes? get me some of what you're smoking? cut their taxes to help them out in the face of their poor business decisions sa as to preserve thier contribution to the tax nbase--whaa?

find me a sick single mom of two on the street with no health care to help out--corp welfare is so in vogue, espoused by all the ayn randers who has a bit of troublwe on their hands

This highly comprehensive study is the first of its nature in more than 25 years and consists of cumulative data and information based on a sampling of 50,000 rent-stabilized buildings.

i wonder how they selected the sample. also, i think the numbers change significantly when you discuss number of units, rather than buildings. all of the massive complexes, obviously, are owned by major landlords.

It's the same crap -- RSA is dominated by major landlords, and make small landlords their big squawking point. It's the same as the "family farm" argument pitched by BigAg, and by families like the Waltons, Gallos, and many other sleazes who hide behind "family farmers" when they try to tear down the estate tax and avoid the inheritance tax that should be created.

thank you alan and ar

reminds me of joe the plumb fool

Everyone you can't throw atlas at me - this is a regulated market - you can't regulate the revenues and not the expenses. I'm actually in favor of rent stabilization and never posted anything to the contrary. I'm just against the way it's run right now.

Ubottom - your points don't make sense to me - the rules of the game have changed since everyone bought their buildings. The laws say that rent increases have to be more than the increase in expenses. But my entire point in this thread is that the government hasn't given increases that are big enough. So if you buy a building in this regulated market you know what you're getting into - but you don't expect the government to not follow the laws. If you bought when it took 3 months to evict a nonpaying tenant and property taxes were 50% of what they are today and oil was $35/barrel then the government doesn't give you the rent increases to cover your expenses - then there is a problem and these landlords have a gripe. You're asking the owners to follow the rules but not expecting the government to follow the same rules?

ah, you mean the "death tax"?
the middle classers who get indignant over this one kill me-got to hand it to em rove is a genius!

"ah, you mean the "death tax"?
the middle classers who get indignant over this one kill me-got to hand it to em rove is a genius!"

sorry I miss your point.

Private equity firms invest money on behalf of universities, charitable endowments and pension funds.

often unwisely, as the current state of endowments and pensions demonstrates.

A lot of people can invest unwisely. If you compare the endowments' 10 year performance to others, you'll come out better.

But, point being that calling private equity as evil, well, they are doing their job to get returns for colleges, pension funds for the retirees, etc.

To further clarify my point - certainly some buyers paid too much or refinanced with too much debt. If the building's net income before debt service is not enough to cover the debt service then let the guy burn BUT ONLY if the government is following it's own rules. If the government is giving rent increase that cover increases in operating expenses and the guy still can't pay his bills then foreclose. Sty Town, Riverton etc should all be turned over to the lenders - no doubt, no bail out, no special increases. But a person who buys a building with an 8 cap and now has negative cash flow, they shouldn't lose their investment because the government doesn't follow the laws.

rents are down...waaaaay down...market forces..not government...a prudent landlord with plenty of cushion and smarts is fine...and RS has been significantly relaxed for LL's of recent...what load of crap...done with this

"and RS has been significantly relaxed for LL's of recent...what load of crap." You're right finally - it is a bunch of crap to say that RS has been relaxed for LL's recently.

"But do landlords routinely open their books for all to see? Absolutely not."

Actually that's not totally true - pretty every landlord has to submit an:

Real Property Income and Expense (RPIE) Statements

Owners of income-producing properties that have an actual assessed value of more than $40,000 are required to file annual Real Property Income and Expense (RPIE) statements with Finance, unless the properties are specifically excluded from the filing requirements by law. Finance uses the information from these statements to estimate the market value of property for tax purposes, and may use data that is specific to a particular parcel or data from comparable properties. For this reason, owners of income-producing properties who are not legally required to file an RPIE may still want to provide information about their properties using the online RPIE-EZ form. All other owners are required to file RPIE statements electronically. You will be able to print a copy of the filed RPIE for your records. Finally, you are no longer required to submit a paper copy of your rent roll.

"This highly comprehensive study is the first of its nature in more than 25 years and consists of cumulative data and information based on a sampling of 50,000 rent-stabilized buildings."

I'm not sure I really buy this statement because I've been hearing pretty much those same stats for YEARS from RSA.

"Myth No. 1: Owners are primarily large corporate interests. In actuality, 48.2 percent of all owners are immigrants or children of immigrants. "

Like the Elghanayans, Miki Naftali, Leviev, Boymelgreen ...................

but more seriously, an awful lot of the "study" is skewed because you can't really compare 100 owners who own their building that they live in with 6 units to 3 companies that own 10,000 units each, can you?

"this article is so slanted towards landlords that it makes me laugh. landlords are starving orphans coerced into ownership by scheming tenants looking to cheat them out of all their assets. so...if any of this were true, why didn't they all sell their buildings two years ago and before when they could. the long term ownership which they are using to support the idea of lack of return can just as easily support the concept of being a great investment."

While I agree by definition it's "slanted towards landlords", but that's not how I would characterize the *report*. The problem with the report is that it really doesn't have much to do with anything that is meaningful to the people who post here, because whether you're talking about renting or buying, there are few here who are looking to move into apartments worth less than $200,000 (even if it's someone else's $200,000 and they are paying rent). So, the issue isn't really about what percentage of units are owned by small players because mostly, the apartments which are talked about here just aren't in those buildings. Pretty much across the board, the stuff that gets talked about here is in buildings owned by "larger" entities by definition.

Where there are REAL problem is in places like Bed-Sty, East Elmhurst, etc. where people buy houses and HAVE to have tenants in order to afford the house, and ANY problems with tenants can be a major financial drain on these immigrant, lower-middle class, getting squeezed from every angle small building owners.

But in terms of "why didn't they all sell their buildings two years ago", there are LOTS of owner who put themselves in a position where they really CAN'T do this: it's simialr to the issue I've been talking about with Coop and Condo owners doing cash-out refi's. What happned is every couple of years, middle sized building owners (like say, a 75 unit building on Ocean Parkway) cashed out by taking a bigger mortgage and it was "tax free" income. Now, they can't sell because it would trigger a huge tax bill. I know of more than a few guys a couple of years ago who thought the market was going down 20% on the buildings they owned, but couldn't sell anyway since the taxes they would owe would almost put them in the same position.

"Landlords are bleeding at the seems and unless the government either lowers their expenses or lets them increase their revenues we could have a big problem collect property taxes. I'm not asking for a bail out - in fact I'm against every bail out and have been from the start - what I'm telling everyone is that unless the RGB and government get together and reverse this trend that is bleeding landlords to death then we're going to have big problems."

Unfortunately, the Obama-bots don't understand this.

Everyone wants government services -- police, fire, schools, welfare for the poor, yadda yadda yadda -- but no one wants to pay for them. They want only the "rich" to pay.

Well guess what? The rich are US. Households making more than $77,500/year are in the top 25% of the nation's earners. If you make more than $167,000/year, you are in the top FIVE percent. If you make more than $350,000/year, you are in the top ONE percent.

NYCMAtt - I fear we run out of other people's money sooner than later.
The Chinese are awash in cash we are awash in debt. They have about $3T of cash and equivalents (I heard) and we are projected to have $9T of debt within a year. We owe the Chinese $800B alone - figure at an average rate of 4% that means we pay China $32B per year in interest alone.
We can't seriously think that we can retain our standing as a world power under these circumstances. America's attempt to be all things to all people may ultimately lead to our downfall. The Roman's thought it couldn't happen to them, how can we possible think that our debt load isn't a problem with catastrophic consequences?

Here is the problem:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

47% will pay no federal income tax

surprise--the wealthier an american is, the more likely they will pay at least some federal tax--what a shocker

what's more shocking is that, acc to warren buffett, he pays a lower marginal federal rate than does his secretary

what percantage of american's who die have an estate sufficient to warrant payment of estate taxes by the hardworking descendants? less than one half of one percent

and matt, only in the highest income metro areas does 350,000 per year sound anything but very rich, if not the highest income in the county by leaps and bounds

let's not forget the incontrovertably documented "trickle up" in wealth (think tax cuts for the rich) that was provided for during the economic "expansion" (think laissez faire bubble) of the bush era

surprise: the very rich are often bush-bots

in fact of recent the rich have become very much richer, at a shocking rate

The last two lines of the article are the most important:

"Experts say that to pay for all the things on the country's growing tab, the money can't just come from a shrunken pool of taxpayers.

"Over the long run, you'll have to have a broader base,""

states' tax revenue 2nd quarter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125424963214850111.html

Eleven states -- including California, New York and Wisconsin -- saw personal income taxes fall more than 30%.

modern - along with the fact that 47% of US households don't pay any federal income tax - they also get tax credits - we actually pay them to live here. It's idiotic.

Ubottom - your points about taxes are very valid too - the system is a joke - write off after write off put into legislation to appease a politician's base - we need 3 tax brackets $30,000 - $100,000 - and $300,000 and the elimination of all deductions - you can't favor people with kids (I have my share of kids, but why do my neighbors have to pay for my kids?) you can't favor home owners - shouldn't renters get a break too - a simple tax structure - simple forms - etc - For businesses - one flat rate no deductions - simple enough -
really I'm for a consumption based tax but that will never pass -

> nyc10022, what property does WFP own

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nut_house_empire_A5WRj6MgbTHqsR3fQD31GL

ACORN has quietly become one of the Big Apple's biggest owners of low- and moderate-income housing, amassing a real-estate empire worth at least $50 million, The Post has learned.

New York ACORN and a tangled web of affiliates own or manage nearly 1,500 housing units across three boroughs and draw in an estimated $5.7 million in rents, fees and profits from sales.

The properties are controlled by an opaque collection of nonprofits, holding companies and development funds. Many have generic names, like the 385 Palmetto Street Housing Development Fund or the Mutual Housing Association of New York, leaving no clue of their ties to the national ACORN conglomerate.

Paul Martinka
A mighty real-estate empire grows from an ACORN:

Founded in 1987, MHANY now owns more than 80 homes and apartment houses across Brooklyn and brought in some $2.5 million in revenue in 2007, according to a Post review of state and federal filings.

Such income helps support at least 18 local ACORN affiliates largely based at the 2-4 Nevins St., Brooklyn, address ACORN shares with the left-of-center Working Families Party.

Among them is New York ACORN Housing Company, which was thrust into a political firestorm last week after two of its employees were caught in a national hidden-camera sting giving shady financial advice to two conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute.

Local ACORN housing companies share a president, Hazel Desant, an executive director, Ismene Speliotis, and identical boards.

ACORN reports no compensation for the board members, although it disclosed that 10 directors -- all save Desant -- hold leases in ACORN-owned buildings ranging in value from $5,900 to $11,000 annually.

Six of the directors owed a total of $8,700 in rent as of June 2008, according to the agency's most recent filing. Speliotis reported an annual salary of $60,773 in 2007.

An ACORN spokesman says all of the community group's properties were acquired through city, state and federal affordable-housing programs and, as such, lack any resale value.

"New York ACORN Housing is one of the top providers of managers of affordable housing in this city or anywhere in the United States," spokesman Jonathan Rosen said.

"The Bloomberg administration has turned to New York ACORN housing again and again to help realize the city's vision of developing more affordable housing for New York's working families."

New York ACORN Housing Company owns or manages several ACORN properties, including four multi-family dwellings in East Harlem and two sparkling new Brooklyn housing complexes.

Since 2000, ACORN has managed an 85-unit housing complex in the Mott Haven section of The Bronx

Let's not kid ourselves about ACORN - it is no secret that they are involved in actions like the ones "caught on tape" - there are 20 other agencies just like them who help people perpetrate frauds all of the time.

"An ACORN spokesman says all of the community group's properties were acquired through city, state and federal affordable-housing programs and, as such, lack any resale value."
In other words they were sold by politicians to corrupt "not for profits" for $1 - quid pro quo at it's finest. Buildings I'd pay $1M for are given away. And for Matt and others - I know this stuff has been going on forever - that doesn't make it right and that doesn't mean things won't get better - NYC is much better now than before and eliminating under the table deals like this will only make our city better.

Difference is... ACORN is the one thats also a political party who owns our politicians.

De Blasio and Liu are just the two latest ones who owe them BIG TIME. Weiner, Sheldon Silver... completely in their pockets.

The damage from them goes waaaaaay beyond some properties they stole... and voter fraud... and mortgage fraud...

agree jman--3 or 4 bracket scaled flat tax--army of tax professionals who benefit from the complexity, as well as pork distributing pols will prevent--most powerful of lobbies!

consumption tax works too--quite progressive and sensible re eco concerns etc

alanhart
about 4 years ago
Posts: 11894
Member since: Feb 2007
ignore this person
report abuse
WFP isn't my favorite today, because I love Mark Green and get the sense that DeBlasio is a smarmy hack (but we'll see). However, I don't see any evidence that they propagate any such myths about RS landlords.

alan, do you still think de Blasio is a "smarmy hack"?

That comment was posted before I experienced fieldschester and learned by virtual clinical observation what a smarmy hacky *really* is.

hack. Not hacky sack.

who said anything about de Blasio's sack?

just you