huge news - sty town tenants win

I've gotten in over my head, sorry.

Abatements are over-rated. They expire before you know it. But they arguably create construction jobs and do create subsidized housing via via certificates, which is quite the opposite, so those that benefit from them are quite different than six figure families in rent control/stabilized housing....

oh please. and maybe i'll spend my extra money on consumables, increasing PCE and creating jobs.

how self-serving, RS.

why can't the "LL's" on streeteasy let go of greed and be happy that the middle class can continue to live in Manhattan and make the city diverse...it's not only for the rich!!

Julia -what other business owners should we expect to not maximize their profits?

maybe commercial bankers? look what they did when they had unfettered access to maximizing their "profits."

insurance companies. utilities. etc.

AR - how about lawyers - should they not maximize profits?

oh, please, we've always had commercial bankers, change the word commercial bankers to home buyers, and say the say thing.... hmmm

Lot of irresponsible home buyers. Question is why did they do stupid things, and why were they lent the money to do those stupid things. Gov't through Fannie Mae/FHA said go buy a house, and don' worry about saving for a down payment. It's good social policy. Doesn't matter who you are.

as far as i know legal partnerships, which eat what they kill and don't have any shareholders, have never posed any systemic risk to our economy, unlike commercial banking, real estate (both commercial and residential). legal assistance is available to the indigent,although i will agree that like healthcare access is not optimal for the less advantaged.

insurance is obviously a consumer protection issue, and utilities are highly regulated because you can die if you don't have heat. commercial banking was obviously highly regulated for many reasons, all of which seem abundantly obvious now again.

rs: once a moron, you fill in the blank.

Charles Calomiris makes an intersting point. He claims Treasury (multiple administrations) wanted to reign in Fannie,etc but that Congress/Barney Frank and friends would always block

always a cc?

I have no issue with LLs maximizing profit, as long as safety codes are adhered to. The issue with RS, esp. in the case of Metlife, is that the LLs traded the maximization of profit for sig. tax breaks & a steady income stream.

I think the profit motive is one of the strongest human motives - don't mess with it, channel it.

of course banks have gov't backing which means they can take risks and have gov't bail them out.

rs: hey stupid, you never answered my question about the tech bubble and the gov't. of course, you never answer anything. you just keep posting and posting and posting and posting.

AR - lawyers are taking down our entire healthcare industry - let's not get into all of the others problems they cause in our society.

rs: time for a tube...its been too long (for you).

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/10/hbc-90006000

Good article about Congress, Robert Johnson, Melissa Bean and Gov't role in preventing next crisis/ role in past crisis..

Great point Jazzman, Everyone agrees #1 issue that would cut costs in health care is TORT reform, but the ambulance chasing lawyers fight it!

really, stupid?

how much would tort reform save us?

how much would tort reform save us?

Wow! that question speaks volumes.

come on move in for the kill. give us the number.

Charles Krauthammer is not only writes for the Washington Post , but he's a Doctor and a paraplegic

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080602933.html

is that the number?

The unecessary tests that get ordered for no other reason than to protect Doctor's from mal-practice, the costs of mal-practice insurance that gets passed along to patients. The fact that the question is raised is mind boggling, the fact that the Congress avoided this even more so.. Wonder how many Democratic representatives made their money John Edwards style..

Hey toilet seat lady, do you contribute anything to society? Anything at all? Or do you just take your entitlements ... from your working husband so you can sit at home, from your college for your free education, from your landlord for free toilet seats because your family can't use a bathroom responsibly, from your landlord because you are entitled to a rent stabilized apartment even though you entered into a market rate lease, from the state and local governments for tax benefits that go not to people poorer than you and certainly not to people more wealthy than you, and from the federal government because you don't even want to pay your share of taxes?

Welfare queen toilet seat lady, I know you are going to tell me I'm droll or I'm boring you or I'm amusing you, and that I that I'm full of shit and should piss off, and I know all that makes you feel more emboldened to your entitlements.

But seriously, do you have anything to add to society? (and don't tell me you are insightful to columbiacounty because we all know he hates liars).

Jazzman that's bs. The plaintiffs' bar for medmal has been gutted and yet medmal insurance rates continue to rise. Employer based health care costs for insurance have risen 149 percent this decade. You're focusing on a popularly assumed culprit but it's the wrong one.

rs: to repeat, hey stupid, how much? very simple question. ayn rand would love it. how much, stupid?

"as far as i know legal partnerships, which eat what they kill and don't have any shareholders, have never posed any systemic risk to our economy"

Not sure, but I suspect Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz might be a counter example.

really?

do you think they pose a systemic risk to the financial system? what would happen to all of us if they went away?

....i've shown time and time again that during many years, depending on the goals of the FHA, the program had extremely high success rates. it depends on what is being attempted, not the downpayment amount. certain losses were deemed acceptable during certain times of the program, other times they were not and the losses did not materialize despite low down payments.

wow, what a load of cr@p. you're either talking to barney frank or ignoring that HPA will always rescue bad underwriting......

wow, i guess spewing this cr@p makes you feel better about taking subsidized housing away from those who truly need it...

Anyone who denies there is a crisis in medical malpractice is probably a trial lawyer."
Barack Obama 1996 Illinois State Senate race

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/tort-reform-savings/

On Oct. 9, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that lawsuit reforms could save the government about $54 billion in health care costs over 10 years. Frankly, we have seen savings estimates nearly four times as high, but even $54 billion is nothing to sneeze at. According to CBO analysis, if Congress instituted caps on noneconomic damages ("pain and suffering" awards and the like), it would be able to eliminate a proposed new tax on medical devices that threatens to put some small manufacturers of health products out of business. At $38.6 billion, that proposed new device tax could be blocked, and Congress still would have more than $15 billion left over.

hilarious.

based on what?

nothing?

LL's are still making profits with rs tenants...they can raise rents for improvements, vacant apts, etc.

based on what?

your congressional budget office...

Julia: you can't make a blanket statement like that. Some LLs can make profits with RS, others can't.

nyc10023...you're completely correct but I'm only stating that they are making profits....do you think it's fair for me to pay $2495 for a very,very small non doorman one bedroom when the previous tenant paid $660.00. I would have been happy to pay $1800-$1900 but the LL was greedy...I'm not saying I should be paying $660.

"LL's are still making profits with rs tenants...they can raise rents for improvements, vacant apts, etc."

"Julia: you can't make a blanket statement like that. Some LLs can make profits with RS, others can't."

While I agree that some LL's can and some can't, the VAST majority of those that can't, couldn't when they first purchased the building, and were "buying on the come". While there are SOME where costs grew faster than rents due to RS/RC (especially smaller buildings where extreme rises in heating, water and RET costs substantially changed overall operating costs), the vast majority of LL's who are losing money due to RS/RC have been doing so from the start, and knew what they were getting themselves into when the bought the property (Like ST/PCV)

studdering julia, you mean that the land lord took advantage of you but you still decided to sign the lease and pay more than that apartment is worth?

Julia: it's not about what is fair. Even RS/RC is not about fairness. It depends on what your LL bought the building for, and what taxes & maintenance are. I've looked at a few small buildings recently, and to make a small profit, you would have to go back to pre-1998 prices for the buildings, while keeping rents at 2009 prices. Taxes, heating, maintenance have gone up a huge amount. It is unfortunate that the rent on your apt was raised by so much, but a lot of small-time LLs are barely keeping up with expenses.

One could say that the solution would be for all these LLs who can't keep up to sell their properties at a price that would enable the new owners to make a profit again, but that can create a lot of havoc for renters as well.

Julia: I have no idea where you live, and so can't speak to the specifics of your situation.

30yrs: I only know the (admittedly micro) markets I know, and these LLs were making a small profit circa 1995 given what they paid for the properties. Rents haven't gone up that much vs. taxes & expenses, so I don't think these bldgs are total cash cows.

sure, RS, if you eliminate the right to sue for malpractice. hope they never operate on the wrong side of your brain, although i don't know if it would be that apparent.

from everything i've read the rate of unnecessary procedures varies HUGELY from county to county. with one neighboring county having much different rates than the one next door. perhaps that community's hospital needs to pay off the new MRI machine?

julia, if someone else is willing and able to pay $2495 for your apartment, then it is absolutely fair. And it would be completely unfair for government policies to deny that other person the ability to do so. If you can't or don't want to pay that much, there are plenty of nice neighborhoods in NYC where you can rent a bigger place at a lower price. You shouldn't be entitled to live exactly in the location you want for the price you want.

Anyone who says they are for health care reform but are not for malpractice reform is a fool, is intellectually dishonest, or both.

Why do they call you the toilet seat lady?

why not? who cares?

not me.

"30yrs: I only know the (admittedly micro) markets I know, and these LLs were making a small profit circa 1995 given what they paid for the properties. Rents haven't gone up that much vs. taxes & expenses, so I don't think these bldgs are total cash cows."

Didn't say they were total cash cows. Just that the majority of buildings that can't make expenses today because of RC/RS couldn't even do it at the time the LL bought the building. It's the same as those who took teaser ARMs when buying Coops/Condos: they knew what was coming and decided to pull the trigger anyway, which makes it harder for me to feel sorry for them. If there were people who were buying buildings at a 20% return and because of RC/RS were now getting -20%, I would not only feel sorry for them but say the City/Sate should give them some sort of credits to make up for 100% of their losses. And, generally speaking, if you are talking about "apartment buildings" rather than small tenements, converted single family's, etc. they aren't under water today unless they were at purchase. The people who are really getting killed tend to be in blue collar areas who live in the building, were only able to make the numbers makes sense buy buying a building with renters, and over the years have seen the coasts you mention rise MUCH faster than the RBG increases have been.

I'm not talking about "apt buildings", I'm talking about multi-fam THs on UWS.

Med mal. issues are different in the US from the rest of the Western world due to a confluence of factors. #1, first and foremost is the non-socialized health care system. #2, legal system (as a whole, not the legal profession specifically).

"{I'm not talking about "apt buildings", I'm talking about multi-fam THs on UWS. "

We're talking past each other: I know, that's why I made that distinction. the reason why it is so different in low unit count buildings is that one unit is such a high percentage of the building. I owned an Italianate row house on 9th St. had ONE RC tenant on the top floor. But that meant 25% of the tenants were RC. Imagine if you had a 100 unit building with 25 RC tenant? OUCH.

if you eliminate the right to sue for malpractice

well that's a dumb statement. nobody who preaches tort reform advocates eliminating the right to sue.

Wow, Heath Care bill may actually be anti-tort reform. Haven't fully digested this, but wouldn't surprise me considering Tort reform was taken off the table..

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/148242

A friend points out a little nugget of absurdity and political mendacity in the Pelosi health-care bill. Remember Obama’s effort to try a “test” for tort reform? (We don’t actually need a test, since it has worked to lower medical malpractice coverage and help increase access to doctors in states that have tried it.) Well, Pelosi’s bill has an anti-tort-reform measure. On pages 1431-1433 of the 1990 spellbinder, there is a financial incentive for states to try “alternative medical liability laws.” But look — you don’t get the incentive if you have a law that would “limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.”

That’s what the trial lawyers get for the millions spent in supporting the Democratic party, and that’s what tort “reform” in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of health-care legislation amounts to. States will be strong-armed into repealing existing caps in order to get the Fed’s money. Sweet, huh? Well, unless you thought the aim was to reduce medical costs. No, this will go a long way toward ensuring that tort lawyers remain rich, malpractice insurance remains high, and unnecessary defensive medicine remains a fixture of the health-care system. Nice going, Nancy!

http://www.triallawyersinc.com/updates/tli_update_healthcare_2009.html

In his nationally televised speech before both houses of Congress on September 9, President Obama made news by acknowledging that medical-malpractice litigation "may be contributing to unnecessary costs" in the U.S. health-care system. The president's comments were in keeping with popular opinion: 72 percent of Americans think that fear of lawsuits compromises doctor decisions, and fully 83 percent want any health-care reform to address medical-malpractice litigation.

Notwithstanding the president's remarks and popular opinion, Congress has been laboring to expand medical liability against nursing homes, medical-device makers, and military doctors—changes that would be expected to drive up, not down, health-care costs. The reason is simple: with massive campaign contributions and lobbying clout, the organized plaintiffs' bar—whom the Manhattan Institute has dubbed "Trial Lawyers, Inc."—has bought Congressional leaders' support. In the last election cycle, the trial lawyers' political action committee gave over $2.5 million to Congressional Democrats, making the plaintiffs' bar the second largest donor after the electrical workers' union (see graph). Overall, lawyers and law firms gave almost $234 million to federal campaigns in 2008, including almost $127 million to Congressional candidates—more than any other industry group and significantly more than all health-care-related contributions combined (see graph).

rs, you're an idiot. you have the most simplistic thought patterns.

well that explains not going after tort reform. thanks for clarifying.

rs, why don't you start a medmal tort reform thread? so people can ignore another long string of your random posts that have nothing to do with real estate?

Why does aboutready say the dumbest things, like her stupid comment that people are for eliminating the right to sue for malpractice, while at the same time have such an obnoxious attitude? Oh, because she is a nasty person who thinks she is much smarter than she really is. That's right.

Like you Our Lady of the Toilet Seat Welfare Queen have so much value to add here.

Are you only interested in legal matters when you can get monetary damages from your landlord when you've faced no harm in your arms-length negotiated market-rate rental?

isn't it nice that LICC has finally found a friend?

even if its himself?

I thought I was Apt_Boy or one of a few others you two (haha) imagine. Which is it Our Lady of the Toilet Seat Welfare Queen.

What are you entitled to today?

What are you lying about today?

Are you up at your country home, was it a tough week spending two hours a day at the gym while your husband earned income and you plotted ways to get money and other things you weren't entitled to?

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=32484
(Don't agree with everything in the editorial, but the following paragraphs seemed to capture some relevant thoughts on this thread...)

.....
The rent increase—$45 a month for one-year leases and $85 a month for two-year leases—will affect tenants like Santiago Garza, who has been living in a rent-stabilized apartment on West 48th Street since 1981. Garza pays $570 a month for his digs, while a comparable apartment next to him rents for $1,800, he told the New York Post in June. Yet Garza and the hundreds of angry tenants and advocates who protested the rent hike when it was approved believe that they are merely getting what they deserve—unlike their landlords, who don’t “do enough,” Garza complained. Getting a $1200-a-month subsidy from your landlord, and forcing him to take a huge loss on the market value of his property, isn’t greed, it’s a right! A $1200-a-month windfall to a tenant: simple justice. A market-driven level of rent: landlord avarice.

This remarkable sense of entitlement is of course the official creed in New York, whose city council and representatives in Albany believe that landlords are virtually public entities, obligated—at whatever cost to themselves in foregone income—to provide services and shelter to a lucky group of renters (and at whatever cost to the city in unbuilt rental units). Imagine if the New York City Council, whose speaker, Christine Quinn, enjoys a rent-stabilized apartment in Chelsea, capped worker salaries, so that employers would not face the hardship of competing in the marketplace for employee talent. Such a law would be denounced as a grotesque infringement on the economic rights of the common man. But if the first-time owner of a duplex in Queens seeks a market return on his investment, he is pilloried for ripping off the poor.

do you read jihadwatch.com as well, which is linked on that site? everyone, pull up the source and have a look-see. here's another gem from the front page, discussing whether or not glenn beck is a "good" conservative. how restrained of you to not post something off-topic, but likely so near and dear to your heart.

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36432

I took a look at jihadwatch.com. What is wrong with it?

Were you in NYC during 9/11? Do you think we never have to worry about an attack on us again?

We don't know if aboutready Our Lady of the Toilet Seat Welfare Queen was in NYC on 9/11, but we do know she has a funny story from the 80s about her and a toilet plunger and her local bar.

obsess much?

We don't know if aboutready Our Lady of the Toilet Seat Welfare Queen was in NYC on 9/11, but we do know she has a funny story from the 80s about her and a toilet plunger and her local bar.

Which is it Our Lady of the Toilet Seat Welfare Queen.

Like you Our Lady of the Toilet Seat Welfare Queen have so much value to add here.

Why do they call you the toilet seat lady?

yes, modern i was in NYC on 9/11. our daughter developed asthma as a result. but i don't read publications that focus on hatred toward any group of people. if you enjoy that type of thing, fine. there are legitimate news sources that are available to keep one informed.

Hard to believe the asthma was a result of 9/11 - maybe you just hadn't realized she already had the asthma.

If it is as a "result of 9/11", she probably was able to try to collect government benefits.

an asthmatic condition can be triggered by many things. a few days after 9/11 she was hospitalized with an asthma attack. at the age of five. she had never had any breathing difficulties previously, and her doctor agreed with me that the triggering event was likely particulate air pollution. she suffered from asthma for two-three years, and then it abated. haven't used a nebulizer in four years, and it was our constant companion for those years.

columbiacounty, whats your side of the story on this?

Hatred? I guess you didn't actually read the site you suggested people look at. I don't see anything of that there. I think you assume that all "right-wing" links are suspect and thought it was easy to take a swipe at them. I hadn't read the site until you posted it, and probably won't again, but fail to see what is so objectionable about it, it is a blog by an author who has a point of view.

In my view, ALL "right-wing" and "left-wing" sites are suspect, you need to filter them to reach the truth. But simply closing your eyes and pretending a subset of a certain religion does not hate us seems dumb to me.

And if you only rely on "legitimate news sources" you are missing much, including the real estate meltdown that the NY Times pretty much failed to cover despite numerous blogs covering the forthcoming problems.

how'd you like the glenn beck article?

i read a huge array of sources, certainly not all left-wing.

columbiacounty, now what do you have to say about the Glenn Beck article?

Oh Please! People on the left always point to a Glen Beck & Fox but fail to recognize Rachel Madow and MSNBC. The hypocrisy and irony are just too much.

The Beck article seems kind of bland, what about it did you find worthy of posting here?

I don't judge political parties by their TV talk show hosts. Both parties seem to have more than their fair share of idiots.

What was it about the quotes on rent control in NYC did you find nullified by the Beck article or jihadwatch? I don't get the connection.

Do you disagree that rent-stabilized tenants have an enormous sense of entitlement to lower than market rents, that is not present anywhere else in our great country?

Both parties seem to have more than their fair share of idiots.

Yep, Democrats have Pelosi & Republicans have Palin.

modern, you miss the point, aboutready isn't even rent stabilized - she entered into an arms-length market-rate rental - but yet she feels entitled to make money damages off of her landlord because the state and city didn't receive the benefits they gave a tax break for.

Our Lady of the Toilet Seat Welfare Queen is creating new entitlements for herself.

bfs- but she will get RS status because of the lawsuit, just a side benefit

i agree with you regarding each party having their share of idiots.

regarding the source, i will only say that this involves a long-standing discussion. i don't get the war between bjw and mutombo, but i assume it derives from something. as does this.

and no, i don't agree with the article. everyone loves to trot out their examples of that "sense of entitlement." i'm a prime example of how RS doesn't work if your goal is to create affordable housing for people of limited economic means. and i know plenty of others. but the vast majority of RS tenants that i know are indeed middle-income families, who have lived in their homes for a long time, which was consistent with the goal of RS, stability. and they are afraid of losing their homes. but they don't make for an "interesting" story, so they aren't the ones getting the press. or they live in 80/20 buildings, which enabled developers to build, which was another goal of the RS program.

kind of like how the press generally only "finds" people to interview regarding their economic situation who are not really very worthy of sympathy. people enjoy despising other people, it makes them feel good about themselves.

Tell us that story again about you and the toilet plunger on Christmas eve in the 80s.

And then again AR, there are other boroughs in New York - if people can't afford Manhattan, there are Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Staten Island - all of which have some really nice neighborhoods and schools.

Oh that's right, only market rate tenants move from Manhattan to find other suitable living spaces.

Regardless of the initial purpose, rent stabalization is great for politicians. Just think any politician who champions the cause alienates one owner who may not even reside in the state, and gains favor from hundreds of renters. Very handy in the next election. Lessons from the annals of Barney Frank & CRAlending.

Sad how aboutready tried to turn criticism of rent stabilization leeches into an attack on the messenger because of jihadwatch.com

licc has another friend.

licc, thank you. and hsf too. you two amuse me greatly. keep up the good work.

rs, you're just lame. how's your tax abatement working for you? and i assume LIC has one also. but of course tax abatement programs aren't political in the slightest. nor slanted toward the purchasers of very overpriced property. can't think of a more worthy recipient of public largesse than purchasers of new condo construction. whatever the public policy intent might have been.

Faulty economics.. abatement isn't for the buyer, it's for the seller, who realizes a higher price on the property than he/she otherwise might have. This in turn provides housing credits that benefit low income. Understandable error, most people think this way. Think about..

is there nothing too stupid for you to get a little attention? your endless desire to debate for the sake of debating is beyond tiresome. faulty economics?

http://www.urbandigs.com/2007/04/biggest_scam_in.html

you're so stupid, rs. i've always said it's a horrible inducement for the buyer, and the developer wins. but in the meantime the city doesn't collect the taxes.

THAT's my point. it may screw you and others in the end, but in the meantime you're screwing taxpayers.

Like your Rent Stabilized apartment complex? I see.

Except the city gets private developers to finance housing for low and middle income and the abatement is temporary, unlike a project such as Stuy town which is a permanent drain yet provides what benefit to tax payers?

've always said it's a horrible inducement for the buyer

of course you did.. especially ten minutes ago...

again, misinformed. the j-51 expires in 2016ish. and RS is being phased out all over manhattan.

and you just proved my point. how is one entitlement program better than the other? moral relativity? often liked by people who attempt to rationalize benefits inured to themselves.

how much benefit came from the abatement programs to the poor? really? organizations representing the poor called the program horrifically imbalanced in its benefit levels among classes.

but feel free to continue to feel superior in your glass box extell unit.

rs, you're such a fucktard. i've been talking about the abatement issue here for three years. i started a conversation a number of months ago that UD joined about how detrimental they are.

Yale English major or Economics major?

There ar goes again, trying to misdirect the argument when she knows she looks stupid. I don't agree with abatements either, but they are not nearly as harmful as RS. At least with abatements, developers have a way to offset some of the huge NYC labor costs and are incentivized to build nice homes where they otherwise might not. There are very few benefits to RS. Of course I am not surprised that aboutready can't understand this.

history and psychology, with a healthy dose of poli sci and econ. happy to analyze you, discuss your cognitive processes, discuss community-based interventions for children. happy to discuss the ancien regime, or various economic systems over time.

licc, you have repeatedly proven yourself to be one of the dumbest people on this board. really. you're an absolute embarrassment to yourself.

but i'm not surprised you don't realize it.

oh, btw, that's fab. my entitlement is ok because it is better. by my reasoning, of course.