Quick question about rent stabilization

Let me see, would I rather be a liar or a tool?

hfs"By the way Jazzman, nice guy who won't finish last... Except did I read wrong, you can't even evict a non-paying tenant from your buildings. And housing court judges are throwing out your agreements calling them unfair. And you've complained that your cost increases exceed your rent increases. Maybe you just haven't reached the finish line?"
I certainly am losing money by the day right now. But I'm picking up nice assets as prices fall. I have plenty of reserves and will continue to use this down cycle to grow my business. When the market turns I'll be ready.

AR - I don't diss renters - I am a renter. Why would I buy a $2M apartment when I can rent one for $5000/month. I'd rather use the cash to buy a 20 unit building in Harlem or a 30 unit building in the Bronx.

AR - TS didn't need to wait a week after they closed to find out their projections wouldn't work. People were screaming in their ears that they were crazy. It seemed nearly everyone knew but them (and their investors).

But this is how it should work - the investors and the sponsors should lose their money - the lenders will take over the property and sell to someone at a price that is sustainable. Markets cycle - it's just too bad so many were there to suffer the consequences.

jazzman, as i'm sure you're aware, Fannie and Freddie have the majority of the senior debt. i'll grant you that this is a highly unusual situation, and it is indeed unfortunate that pension plans, churches, etc. had to get swept up into this loss, but at the end of the day this has a very high likelihood now of being a tenant-owned complex, with a manageable debt load and probably very good self-governance.

so perhaps some good can come from the ashes. i do, btw, realize that i am hardly a disiniterested party. but we are where we are, and now perhaps there can be some long-term resolution, for everyone involved.

and jazzman, i wasn't saying that you in particular dissed renters. i was saying that's the prevailing attitude, and it is a conflicted one.

Talk about conflicting.

Liar

For 30 years:

Executive Summary

This report examines New York City’s rent stabilization system and estimates the effects of total or partial deregulation. It finds that rent stabilization provides little benefit to residents of the outer boroughs and the lower and middle-income neighborhoods of Manhattan, while providing a substantial subsidy only to the residents of the relatively affluent areas of Lower and Mid-Manhattan.

The report also finds rent increases for stabilized housing following deregulation would be significantly less than generally expected. Because residents of neighborhoods outside of the affluent part of Manhattan are not receiving significant subsidies, their rent increases would be minimal to non-existent. In the affluent areas of Lower and Mid-Manhattan, the substantial expansion of the unregulated housing market would create downward pressure on rent levels, making rent increases for stabilized housing less than might be expected.

The report’s specific findings are as follows:

* The median monthly subsidy provided by rent stabilization for all of New York City is $42. However, under total rent deregulation the median monthly rent of subsidized housing would increase by only $8 due to the expansion of the unregulated market. Under vacancy deregulation, the median monthly rent increase during the first two years would be $35.
* The vast majority of the benefits of rent stabilization go the higher-income areas of Lower- and Mid-Manhattan, where the median monthly subsidy from rent stabilization is $397. By contrast, the median subsidy in the Bronx is $58, in Upper Manhattan (including Chinatown and the Lower East Side) it is $9, and in Brooklyn it is $5, while in Queens and Staten Island the median subsidy is effectively zero.
* This disparity would be even starker under deregulation. Under total deregulation, only the Bronx ($37) and Lower- and Mid-Manhattan ($218) would see an increase in the median monthly rent of stabilized housing. The same is true for the first two years of vacancy deregulation, though in that case the median rent increase would be $54 for the Bronx and $374 for Lower- and Mid-Manhattan. In both cases, the median rent would not increase for residents of stabilized housing in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and the Lower East Side and Chinatown.
* Even now rent regulation does not appear to protect most City residents from rising rents. Between 1993 and 1999, the median monthly rent of stabilized housing citywide increased 24%, while the median rent of unregulated housing increased only 17%. Only in the affluent neighborhoods of Manhattan was there a larger median rent increase for unregulated housing.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_34.htm

AR - I hope you guys buy it - anything that encourages ownership and self sufficiency I'm all for.

Modern - thanks for the link - exactly the report I was thinking about. If we found out the HPD, DHCR extra costs in housing court etc actually were larger than the above savings to tenants then it would behoove us to eliminate RS and use the funds to greatly expand the voucher system.

the problem that i see with that analysis is that it presumes an efficient market. many landlords would not provide renewal leases, thinking, however incorrectly, that they could get a higher rent with a new tenant. the end resulting rents may be very similar to the existing RS ones, but in the meantime huge numbers of tenants will have been displaced.

You are assuming landlords would be irrational and would kick out existing tenants to replace then with tenants at the same rent, with some vacancy period likely in between. Not sure why you would draw that conclusion. Or even if so, why that should matter in ending rent stabilization.

sort of like all the retail landlords who didn't offer renewals and jacked up rents and now have vacant properties?

and the distribution is not even, you're talking averages. you may be happy to see the 87 year old lose her $900 2 bedroom in PCV, i'm not. and the landlord damn well would refuse a renewal lease, if allowed to do so under those circumstances.

and what would be the utility? if net collections remain roughly the same, why force forward the process to displace those least able to move, which would be the elderly who have the best deals because of length of occupancy?

you've had a long term RS tenant. RS goes away. you as landlord say to the tenant: hey, i think i can get another 30% for this place so thats what i'm going to charge you. tenant says, i'm moving. tenant moves. landlord tries to market at +30%. gets no takers.

as far as ending RS, as I've said elsewhere, whatever one may think of RS is general, these economic times do not need yet another disruption. now is not the time to make a move like this.

Tell me why it is ok to kick an 87 year old out of his house in the rest of the US if he can't pay the mortgage, but not ok to not renew a below-market apartment lease in NYC?

modern - I think people in the Bronx would leave the city or leave their apartments if they didn't have this mental hangup that they've got a "cheap" rent. They may actually go to say Clemson and find that for $450/month you can find a place that is livable. And tenants living in terrible buildings would take off as they could now find sometime well maintained. So the vacancy would be tenant driven.

1. i don't think its ok to kick an 87 year old out of his house under any circumstances. unfortunately, the status quo (absent the RS nyc situation) is that there is no workable mechanism to keep them there. and while we're at it, forget about the mortgage; how about a situation where a person has no mortgage but can't afford the property taxes even with a senior exemption?

2. how is it good for anyone if people who have been in an apartment for many years have to move to another city?

3. how do these apartments magically become well maintained? you are ignoring the time and cost of achieving a new equalibrium. what happens in the meantime?

AR - I think you missed my earlier point "you may be happy to see the 87 year old lose her $900 2 bedroom in PCV, i'm not. and the landlord damn well would refuse a renewal lease, if allowed to do so under those circumstances." The 87 year old lady gets to stay - elderly people in NY (who make less than $32K (I think) don't pay rent increases - their rent is frozen and the tax payers pay the annual increase. This income limit could certainly be raised to ensure less harm - but certainly millionaire 87 year old can pay market rent.

"and what would be the utility?" the utility is that you have a system that is monitored by the tenants with their dollars and not by several government agencies. If the landlord is indeed a slumlord then people move. Landlords would be forced to improve their housing or let it sit vacant. It's the best way to improve people's living conditions. For slumlords it's terrible. For decent landlords they can finally evict the drug dealers in their building and the guy who plays his music too loud every night, and the lady with the kids who pee in the elevator etc.

And CC - couldn't agree more - now is not the time for any of this.

jazzman, the vacancy would be driven by multiple factors. modern, we disagree, that's all there is to it. but right now there are too many apartments as is. landlords can't fill their units. if you had a large negative outflow of tenants now it would further seriously compromise both tenants and landlords.

btw, you provided the study to show that the rents wouldn't change significantly. so i ask you again, what is the utility in changing the system? a simple cost-benefit analysis seems to reveal more potential costs than benefits.

I have no issues with RC/RS protection for seniors and/or disabled. But when you extend those same protections to property owners, watch out! I hate the slippery slope argument, but then you have the specter of senior citizens living in multi-million dollar properties paying hundreds of dollars in taxes, and then passing the tax savings along to their 65+ yr old children upon their death, etc. In any case, long-term residents of NYC (and I think, NYS) are somewhat protected against true market increases with the 5/20 rule.

AR - "but right now there are too many apartments as is" we have the smallest vacancy rate in the country - some markets have 10% vacancy - we still have a housing shortage.

jazzman, i do agree that the RS system discourages improvements to properties. but i stand by my comment that there are more potential problems with abolishing the system right now than there would be solutions.

the demographics thread quite surprised me. i had thought going forward that net negative population inflow rates would be significant. new york still had a small net positive population growth rate this decade, but entirely due to immigration, domestic outflow has been quite significant since 1990 if i read the charts correctly. i'd suspect that the population growth rate for 2008-10 will be negative. combined with delays in household creation and increases in inventory, this has fairly significant implications for real estate consumption here.

"The place wasn't built for middle income people. MetLife just chose to run it that way." Jazzman commenting on ST/PVC.

I respectfully differ. ST/PVC was built for returning WWII veterans, the urban answer to Levittown etc who had middle class aspirations if not the percise incomes to qualify for the designation immediately (hello GI bill). You need to remember a few things about New York City during that long ago era, people did not necessarily look at renting as a stepping stone to ownership. Renting "their" apartment was a long term commitment, and not necessarily due to RC/RS. Also, at the time the lines between classes were less distinct (expect for the upper echelon that most didn't even think about). Unionized blue collar and white collar jobs paid about the same, kids hung out and went to school together and the large group of "having enough to pay the rent, buy groceries, new clothes when necessary but not a lot of luxuries" blended together rather homogenously.

Also, modern just because in other places in the US 87 year olds are kicked out of their homes does not make it right or moral or something we should be prepared to emulate in New York. This city has a long tradition of showing more compassion (and I'm not a bleeding heart liberal except when we are talking about people who can't help themselves yet or anymore). And besides, the rest of the US considers Olive Garden to be fine, or at least acceptable, Italian cuisine. Does that mean New Yorkers should be lining up for the "never ending pasta bowl"?

Liz: Good point about class distinctions.

AR - "domestic outflow has been quite significant since 1990 if i read the charts correctly. i'd suspect that the population growth rate for 2008-10 will be negative. combined with delays in household creation and increases in inventory, this has fairly significant implications for real estate consumption here."
I'll need to find that thread and read it - I assume it points out that NYC losses 20-35 year olds ever year (net) - one would think that's where we gain population.
But, housing is too expensive for them - RS favors the old and the expense of the young. Kids that were raised here and can't compete on a wall st level get tired of living with their parents - they can't afford an apartment so they leave the city.
Still though - we are so far from having an oversupply of housing. Rents here are still significantly above other major US cities. Imagine if you could rent at Sty Town for $2K because that's what the market would bare? If we had 200,000 vacant units (a 10% vacancy rate) then surely we would see rent prices get crushed even more.

Modern, CC and Jazz, you are saying that you think an 87 year old is entitled to stay in a house or apartment without paying rent or a mortgage. At what age do you think this entitlement starts?

Why are seniors entitled to Medicaid, when children are not?

I don't believe anyone has a right to remain as long as they want in somebody else's property.

Especially 20-something models who took over their Goldman Sachs parents 2 br rent-stabilized apartment.

If you want to subsidize the elderly (the wealthiest class in America), have means-tested rental assistance, fine by me, but don't dictate to anyone else that they have to subsidize them.

What most of the RS advocates miss is MANY POOR PEOPLE WILL SEE THEIR RENTS GO DOWN if RS ends, as the rental stocks adjusts.

no one said not paying anything. the issue was throwing someone out who was unable to pay the full amount. and yes i know that begins the whole process of who decides and under what circumstances.

jazzman, i think the vacancy rates are higher than the official rates, but i've never been given a good explanation of how they are calculated. if a major landlord only lists two or three apartments but has 5-6 buildings worth of units available, how is that calculated? is it a survey? are condos and townhouse units included? i'd have to take a look at the charts in that population study again. but no, it was saying that the average income of people leaving NYC is $90kish, and the average income of people entering NYC is 70kish.

recall, rents here (PCV) doubled for many people from 2004 to 2008, although incomes didn't rise, population outflows of the higher earners occurred, and vacancy rates didn't decrease to my knowledge. one bedrooms in 2004 were less than $2000 a month.

modern, i'm not denying that at the end of the day rents may be lower. the process of the rental stock adjusting could be horrifically painful, however. and i'd bet that it would be.

"could be horrifically painful"

Nonsense. World War II was "horrifically painful", ending rent stabilization would not be.

If you were told tomorrow your next lease is no longer stabilized, what would you do? Live on the streets? No, you'd either pay the new rent or move. That would be true for the vast majority of current renters. 5 or 10% of rent stab apartments are probably out-of-towners who would just stop illegally subletting them or using them as pied-a-terres and give them up. No disruption there.

For the truly needy (sorry, $175k income is not needy), you would set up transitional assistance programs to help them relocate or afford a new rent.

they have been trying to do away with RS for years and it sure aint to help the poor people

once again we disagree. i can't see the need for that much dislocation so that the RS people can receive a small reduction in their rents in a year or so after they've been forced to relocate.

from wikipedia, sorry on the source quality but just wanted some quick answers. if this is inaccurate, please let me know. i find it fascinating. jazzman, virtually all housing back then was created as middle-class housing. ironically, PCV/ST opened after the 1947 cut-off, so it was brought into the RS program in 1969. but from a public policy perspective it is clear that nyc over the years has aimed to maintain affordable, middle-class housing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York

Federal regulation (1943–1950)
In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Emergency Price Control Act into law. The goal of the act was to prevent inflation in the booming, fully employed wartime economy by setting price controls nationwide. In November 1943, the Office of Price Administration froze New York rents at their March 1, 1943 levels. When the Emergency Price Control Act expired in 1947, Congress passed the Federal Housing and Rent Act of 1947, which exempted construction after February 1, 1947 from rent controls, but continued that regulation for properties already completed by that date.[2]

[edit] State regulation (1950–1962)
The State of New York took over when Federal regulation ended in 1950. Under the first permanent state laws in 1951, New York took a similar regulatory approach to the Federal Government. At the time there were about 2,500,000 rental units state-wide, 85% of them in New York City. The initial laws covered all rental units, and regulated all relationships between owners and tenants concerning rents, services and evictions.[2]

Into the 1950s, a severe housing shortage prompted the first deregulation of rental units. In New York City, apartments in single and two-family homes became deregulated after April 1, 1953. Cities and towns outside New York City were given permission to deregulate when ready. The most expensive luxury apartments in New York City began to be deregulated starting in 1958. By 1961, only New York City and 18 of New York's 57 other counties had rent regulation.[2]

[edit] Mixed regulation (1962–1984)
New York City and the state government began dual administration of rent regulation in 1962, and 75,000 expensive apartments were gradually deregulated by 1968. In 1969, construction and vacancy rates slumped, causing non-regulated rents to rise nationally. This rapid increase in rents caused New York to pass the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, which introduced rent stabilization to units built after the 1947 cutoff for buildings to be eligible for rent control, covering approximately 325,000 units in New York City.[2]

The Local Law 30 of 1970 introduced a new method of rent control price calculation, based on the Maximum Base Rate, which adapted to the changing costs faced by landlords, allowing them to pass those costs on to renters. A 1981 law took away New York City's ability to regulate rents and gave the power to state government in Albany.[1]

You did not read the study I posted correctly. It talks about the MEDIAN costs not being much different. That does not mean there won't be some wide swings.

Many Manhattan RS tenants will have large increases, but virtually every single Manhattan non-stabilized tenant will get a rent decrease.

Think of it as a see-saw. On one end is a rent-stabilized tenant holding a pile of the landlords money which is weighing him down, holding the seesaw to the ground on his end. On the other is a non-stabilized tenant sitting high up and stuck whose pockets are empty from paying high rents and therefore lighter. Take the landlords money away from the rent-stabilized tenant and make the 2 equal in weight, and the seesaw will bounce around a bit and then equalize. The landlord gets his money back from the RS tenant but then gets less from the non-stabilized tenant, so he is roughly equal.

Net net, getting rid of RS is FAIRER for most residents, is better for the City, and is worth the disruption it will cause for a short period of time.

This is America "with liberty and justice for all".

Tell me why government should dictate that you pay less rent then your next door neighbor with the same salary. Get rid of RS and his rent goes down, yours goes up, too bad for you but it would then be equal for all.

Why should NYC discriminate and charge newcomers more in rent to subsidize others?

modern: you might want to come up with something a little more current than an opinion piece from 2003 using data from 1993 thru 1999.

"Many Manhattan RS tenants will have large increases, but virtually every single Manhattan non-stabilized tenant will get a rent decrease."

I think the concept that "virtually every single Manhattan non-stabilized tenant will get a rent decrease" is seriously flawed, UNLESS there will be a TERRIBLE upheaval of current RS tenants. You already have a ton of new, vacant units coming on the market - how many more would it take to insure this "virtually every single Manhattan non-stabilized tenant will get a rent decrease"? I don't think it is possible to argue BOTH that there are some small amount of RS tenant getting some HUGE breaks AND that getting rid of them will "virtually every single Manhattan non-stabilized tenant will get a rent decrease". The only way that "virtually every single Manhattan non-stabilized tenant will get a rent decrease" is if there is a HUGE amount of turnover. The numbers just don't justify the claim.

"btw, how and why did PCV/ST become subject to RS laws in the first place? does anyone know what caused the complex to enter the program? 30yrs?"

a) I'm assuming you're being serious, and
b) I don't think I saw anyone answer this yet

It's quite simple: it got legislated into it.

"Rent Stabilization:

In NYC, rent stabilized apartments are those apartments in buildings of six or more units built between February 1, 1947 and January 1, 1974.

Tenants in buildings of six or more units built before February 1, 1947 and who moved in after June 30, 1971 are also covered by rent stabilization.

A third category of rent stabilized apartments covers buildings with three or more apartments constructed or extensively renovated since 1974 with special tax benefits. Generally, these buildings are stabilized only while the tax benefits continue. "

The vacancy survey is only done every 3 years, and they haven't even released the detailed results from the 2008 survey yet (in 2010), so you aren't going to get up to the minute research.

The link I posted was not an opinion piece but rather a detailed study by a Harvard professor and housing expert. You and others can talk out of your ass all you want and make stuff up, but he is the first guy to apply serious statistical research techniques, making adjustments for size and condition etc, in his report.

FACT: rent stabilization mostly benefits Manhattan renters.

Find me some other factual research that says otherwise, preferably dated today since you like current.

I'm waiting.

"Why should NYC discriminate and charge newcomers more in rent to subsidize others?"
Because we don't want a city that is exclusively the domain of models, IBs and trust fund babies from Europe? Because we have a tradition of majority rental housing?

I grew up in Manhattan and those very few people I know who also did remained here, almost all in Mitchell-Lama houses, ST/PVC (forgetting that many of the "new" New Yorkers would deride these places as "projectesque) or an apartment they moved into 40 years ago. Most of the kids I grew up had to move out and that is with RS--especially true of those who had families. I don't think its RS that has made Manhattan largely unaffordable for middle income people (although it may play a role), I think it had more to do with coop/condo conversions and relentless gentrification.

And for those who think its all gravy living in a long term RS apartment, remember most of those places haven't been renovated since the tenant moved in (or before). Long term renters often improve their residences, but major capital improvements are another story. Before I purchased it, I could have moved into my mother's apartment and "inherited" it under RS. But that place required a minimum of $100K work just to bring it up to modern standards (not super lux just what any of us would want if we are over 25 and not living in a third world country). From my perspective it was totally not worth it.

"I think it had more to do with coop/condo conversions"

And the reason they converted? To escape rent stabilization and price controls. Short term more lucrative for the landlord, long term bad for NYC as a lot of nice rental buildings became co-ops, run by evil boards with people like NYCMatt in charge. Would anyone like to answer to him on a board? Scary.

I have no particular desire to own a place in NYC. I don't think real estate is a good investment right now. But there are no longer any really nice rental buildings, they all converted. I will be forced to buy at some point due to lack of nice rental inventory.

1. the thought of matt on the board--yuck.
2. they converted because the economics were overwhelming -- rs or not. kind of like a real securitization idea. a classic case of the old question of a string or payments vs. lump sum. even had the string been substantially larger, the allure of the lump sum won the day.

actually, 30yrs, i posted something that answered my own question. amazing what a quick search on the internet will do.

modern, if RS mostly helps renters, who will eliminating it help? earlier you claimed it would help many RS tenants, but i don't think that's your goal. what is so awful about public policy that provides stable rentals? lord knows we have enough economic incentives in our system for buying, all affecting taxpayers (mortgage deduction, capital gains exemption, second home and boat mortgage deduction, artificially low mortgage rates, tax credits, tax abatements) and once again, that's just not going so well.

sorry, i didn't read your post carefully enough. i see, it's the market-rate tenants who will receive a reduction in rents. have you considered what that will do to new rental development, both recently completed and in the future?

"The vacancy survey is only done every 3 years, and they haven't even released the detailed results from the 2008 survey yet (in 2010), so you aren't going to get up to the minute research."

Stop setting up straw men to knock down. There's a HUGE difference between "up to the minute" and 16 years ago (1993). but more importantly THE STUDY ITSELF is 6 -7 years old. You know what else occurred in 1993? vacancy decontrol. You want current? how abut the 2009 "Changes to the Rent Stabilized Housing Stock in New York City in 2008". Some choice morsels:

"From the period of 1994-2008, a total of 83,827
units were registered with the DHCR as being
deregulated due to High Rent/Vacancy decontrol, 80%
of which have been located in Manhattan."

"An estimated total of 41,817 co-op or condo units have left the stabilized stock since 1994.
(See Appendices 5 and 6)" (where do you think the majority of those were?)

"Subtractions from the Stabilized Housing Stock, 1994-2008 Total 190,186"

In 2008, there were 16,833 Subtractions from the Stabilized Housing Stock, of those 10,277 were in Manhattan.

30yrs - there were additions to the stock as well right - these aren't "net" numbers correct???

I like this trend - we can slowly eliminate stabilized units in Manhattan and keep units in the outer boroughs regulated. Not the worst public policy if you ask me.

Personally I'd love to offer landlords in Manhattan the option to deregulate their stabilized units for a one time tax payment of $300,000 per unit. With that money the government can build 3 units of affordable housing in the outer boroughs. 3 affordable units is better than one.

jazzman, i recently read that under bloomberg for every unit of affordable housing that's been developed two have been lost. i don't know what occurred prior to bloomberg, but his program has been hailed as a "success" so i suspect the ratio was even worse.

The number of RS units is not different enough from the 1990s to effect the conclusions of the study.

If anything, the skewness towards benefiting Manhattan renters has probably accelerated.

If you don't like my study, find one to refute it. You can't, because it is correct. You don't have to rerun it every 3 years.

BTW, your numbers are bullshit anyway, as many units were ADDED to RS during that period, so the net decrease is nowhere near what you claim.

a) "The number of RS units is not different enough from the 1990s to effect the conclusions of the study. "

190,000 units isn't enough? Now who is full of it?

b) "BTW, your numbers are bullshit anyway, as many units were ADDED to RS during that period, so the net decrease is nowhere near what you claim."

No, about HALF as many: 108,191. But they all came into the system at MARKET and with the RGB increases there are almost none which aren't STILL at market. So it's you numbers which "are bullshit" because the one's leaving were one's which your survey is all about and the one's coming in are the EXACT OPPOSITE.

"30yrs - there were additions to the stock as well right - these aren't "net" numbers correct???"

Correct: the "net" number is about half, but as I just pointed out above, the one's coming in came in at market, and with the RGB increases still are (and a bunch actually market is less than what could be chared under RS guidelines).

You need to brush up on your statistics.

They do a SURVEY every 3 years, not a CENSUS. The report was based on the survey. The entire rent stabilization system is dependent on a survey by a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington DC who do a survey of 20,000 units. They actually divided wrong or something this year and had to increase the vacancy rate after announcing it.

Scary, huh?

The size of the overall cohort is irrelevant. They do regression analysis controlling for the impact of all the variables. Read the report, it is all there. Some of the variables have no doubt changed a bit over the years but the overall conclusions are likely to be similar.

For those looking on from the side, look at it this way: since 1993, just about the only Rent Stabilized leases signed in the areas of Manhattan we tend to talk about here were RS due to tax benefits received, but were for "full market", whereas during that same time period there have been a significant amount of vacancy increase re-rental RS units in the boroughs. one of the simplest reasons for this is that it just didn't pay for LL's of these buildings to put enough MCI $ into units to get them over $2,000 MBR, when market was "only $200 or $300" over what the RS rent was. But as I said before, the economics for both renters and LL's of these buildings is totally different than you see in the much higher dollar brackets of the areas we tend to talk about.

So a full day and no one wants to question aboutready on being a bald faced liar?

And few find it shocking that the level she advocates for subsidies goes just up to the convenient level of income for the unemployed (what do you call not even trying?) aboutready and her corporate contracts lawyer husband.

Evidence Points to Little Harm from Lifting Rent Control

The most striking feature of the end of rent control in Massachusetts was that a remarkably small number of rent-controlled households–only about 7 percent–applied and qualified for these transitional extensions. In the three rent-regulated cities, about 42,500 units were subject to rent controls in 1994. However, tenants in only 3,090 of these units were deemed eligible for short-term protections because of their low incomes.

To say that this came as a surprise to most would be an understatement. It was generally believed that considerably more households would qualify for protection from decontrol. Clearly, the number of poor tenants in rent-controlled housing had been overestimated. It is worth noting that there has been a virtual absence of horror stories of hardship evictions reported by Boston’s vigilant press.

In Boston, the Rent Equity Board had believed that the city’s 22,000 regulated apartments were occupied primarily by the elderly, and that many of them were poor. The board had no direct information to support this view, and relied on the fact that tenants in rent-controlled units had to have occupied them since before vacancy decontrol in 1976. However, the U.S. Census indicates that the number of elderly poor was about 7,400. It is reasonable to conclude that many of them lived not in the 22,000 rent-controlled units but in the city’s 136,000 other rental units, both private and public. In fact, only 1,065 tenants in regulated apartments ended up qualifying for extensions.

In Cambridge, a 1987 Abt Associates telephone survey seemed to imply that some 5,000 rent-controlled households (almost one-third of all rent-controlled households) would be eligible for an extension. Some predicted an even higher number. After deregulation, however, only 2,345 applied, of which 1,545 were accepted. Some households undoubtedly chose not to apply, but the number of applicants was still significantly lower than many would have predicted. It appears either that the demographic profile of renters in controlled units changed, or some respondents had underestimated their income.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_3.htm

"In the three rent-regulated cities, about 42,500 units were subject to rent controls in 1994."

modern, you honestly think that is a comparable situation?

"They do a SURVEY every 3 years, not a CENSUS. The report was based on the survey. The entire rent stabilization system is dependent on a survey by a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington DC who do a survey of 20,000 units."

Thanks for the (mis)information - but where did I use the word CENSUS? And if you think the RS rates in NYC are dependent solely on a survey done in Washington, DC, you are so out of touch with reality, or actuality, or whatever, that any continued discussion with you is an absolute waste of time.

But keep pulling studies from the same group with the same agenda trying to prove the same things. And while you're at it, since you are such a statistics wiz, go check the regression analysis they actually did to come up with their results and explain that they didn't use actual rents in their analysis, but imputed rents which they chose WOULD BE the market rent of rent stabilized units, and therefore entirely variable based on how THEY DECIDED to tweak the variables to come out with whatever answers they wanted:
"For each of these four areas, a regression equation is estimated, relating rent to characteristics of the unit, the building, the surrounding neighborhood, and the location within the city. The parameters or coefficients of this equation indicate the contribution of each characteristic to the total rent. The equations can then be used to estimate unregulated market rental value for any stabilized unit given its characteristics, and in turn to calculate the subsidy."

Also of note, they admit that much of their results are based on market conditions of the 90's due to high demand and low housing starts:

"This measured benefit to affluent Manhattanites must be viewed in the appropriate context, however, because it reflects in large part the effect that other governmental policies have on housing supply. Manhattan is one of the most difficult places in the country in which to build new units, meaning that the expected market response to sharply rising demand—sharply increasing supply—is unavailable. When supply is constricted and demand rises, the market prices rise. That is the likely cause of much of the subsidy increase seen in the 1990s, not rent regulation."

But here it is still claimed that the results post 1999 would be the same, even given the change in new housing units: take a look at Appendix 1 on page 15 here: http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/09HSR.pdf

aboutready
26 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
"In the three rent-regulated cities, about 42,500 units were subject to rent controls in 1994."

modern, you honestly think that is a comparable situation?

You seriously want modern to talk about honesty?

Since it is a survey, a sampling, whether there is 1.1 million or 1 million rent-stabilized units is not important. Contrary to what you may think, it doesn't change the analysis.

The regression analysis is traditional social research methodology, though I have forgotten most of what I learned back in the day. What I do know is that all of their variables were based on research, such as the elasticity of rental demand and price sensitivity. To compare rent-stabilized units with non-stabilized units, you need to calculate an imputed rent after making adjustments for all the relevant variables (size, condition, neighborhood, etc).

There is nothing controversial about that, it is standard economic and social research methodology. It is all based on hard numbers and footnoted, but maybe you think they just should have asked some brokers, I am sure they would have straightened them right out!

I am still waiting for you to cite anything supporting your contention that Manhattan is not the main beneficiary of rent stabilization. I have one, somewhat old but still relevant study, supporting my position, you got nothing, so far.

modern, so you think it's acceptable to subsidize, at the taxpayers expense, pro-purchasing policies? it's not as if the RS policies have become more regressive, like the homeowner policies. the RS policies have been loosened to the benefit of destabilization. the pro-home purchasing policies only continue to drain huge amounts from taxpayers.

again, what is wrong with a public policy that encourages stable rent patterns?

"In the three rent-regulated cities, about 42,500 units were subject to rent controls in 1994."
"modern, you honestly think that is a comparable situation?"

You have a better comp? Where? In Cambridge, they had strict rent control, probably the same proportionally or higher than NYC. They got rid of it and guess what? Nothing but good things happened.

I lived in Cambridge during rent control. Buildings were dumps, landlords had no incentive to fix anything. Been there recently, the rental housing is all fixed up, and everybody is happy. What's not to like?

modern, sometimes there aren't adequate comps. and this would be one of those. my husband spent some time in boston/cambridge during rent control, in what was considered a bad neighborhood. then he lived with me in hell's kitchen, in a RS apartment. guess which neighborhood and landlords he felt were better?

"again, what is wrong with a public policy that encourages stable rent patterns?"

again, the difference is the taxpayer is subsidizing housing ownership. rent stabilization is being paid by private landlords, not the taxpayers, and many well-off and therefore undeserving people take advantage of it (you are in that category). I have no problem offering rental vouchers to income-limited tenants. I also have no problem getting rid of the mortgage deduction.

this has got to be one of the less useful debates. we have zero control over RS. but more to the point there is little incentive now to spend the money to fight it because a) there isn't much to be gained now that rents are crashing and 2) it isn't likely to be something any politician will want to take on right now due to extreme duress among both renters and homeowners.

yes, i have better comps. much better. but they're all foreign, and i don't feel like inviting excessive bashing right now.

modern, do keep up. for now at least i have a market-rate apartment.

modern, that's idiotic. the vast majority of the RS units have been RS for decades, unless they have been created at market rate. nobody forced the landlords to make their decisions. yes, their costs may have increased, but their commitments were extremely low to begin with. many, many of these developments occurred voluntarily by developers within the RS system. the landlords knew what they were doing. really, that's just absurd.

hey 30, here is some 2002 data for you:

But rent regulation isn’t a rational, necessary protection for low-income and middle-income New Yorkers, as its advocates claim. Data culled from the 2002 census for City Journal by Alan Salzberg of Quantitative Analysis, Inc. bear out what many suspect: although most New York renters live under rent regulation, most of the benefit goes to a comparative few who live in the richest neighborhoods and have remained in their apartments for decades. In Greenwich Village, for example, most regulated tenants surveyed by the census paid $600 to $1,600 a month, depending on the original rental prices, capital improvements approved by government officials, and the number of years the tenants had lived in their apartments. By contrast, a “free-market” tenant, because that “free market” is so supply-constricted, paid $1,500 to $3,400. On the Upper West Side, a free-market renter might have paid $1,900 to $3,400, while a regulated tenant paid $600 to $1,700.

But in the city’s middle-class neighborhoods, the difference between regulated and market units is less than $200 a month: the regulated tenant in Astoria might have paid $800 in 2002, according to the census data, while the free-market tenant paid $1,000. In Flatbush, a free-market tenant might have paid $850, while a regulated tenant paid $690. In Riverdale, free-market apartments commanded about $936, compared with regulated units’ $700. In Throgs Neck, free-market apartments commanded about $750, while regulated rents ran about $625.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_nyc_housing_crisis.html

aboutready,

Politicians will not end RS and no money needs to be spent. Vacancies should exceed 5% during the next survey in early 2011 and it ends, no fuss, no muss.

Market rents will go lower once it ends.

modern, why are you so against some people having a decent deal in manhattan? it really seems to bother you, while you are looking at townhouses under $10mm i believe? so you really care whether or not some people are subsidized in manhattan? do you really want all hipsters and foreigners and bankers? if so, maybe you'd like hong kong.

modern, i believe there are close to a million RS apartments in NYC. you do not want to see what will happen if they all go market. really.

if the vacancies are above 5%, no need to get rid of RS, because market rates will be at or above them. RS offers stability, not necessarily the lowest rents. and you still have not addressed why promoting stability as a public policy in rentals is not a fabulous idea. which i firmly believe it is.

aboutready
36 minutes ago
ignore this person modern, why are you so against some people having a decent deal in manhattan? it really seems to bother you, while you are looking at townhouses under $10mm i believe? so you really care whether or not some people are subsidized in manhattan? do you really want all hipsters and foreigners and bankers? if so, maybe you'd like hong kong.

There you go again. Still haven't explained your lying but you do show your colors. You are ok with you getting a deal on free education and subsidized rent, your corporate lawyer husband getting a deal, your hipster daughter getting a deal, but because modern is successful he or she isn't entitled to an arms length transaction and people who bought an apartment shoud have their agreements with the city and state terminated retroactively.

Admit you are a liar and a hypocrite.

AR "why are you so against some people having a decent deal in manhattan?" - The only people with a "good deal" should be the owners who bought years ago. Some citizens shouldn't subsidize others unless they are not capable of providing for themselves (which I would argue is less than 10% of our populous). That's why I'm against the 421A program, tax free bonds for the Yankees, government payments to the families of the 9/11 victims, interest rate deductions on taxes, child tax credits, $8,000 home buyer tax credits, cash for clunkers etc. Governments shouldn't play favorites. Why should I get a tax credit because I have kids? Why should hfs have to pay for my kids?

Jazzman, one the one hand I agree with you on all of the above. On the other hand, I've come to see that our capitalist system is so fucked up because of so many reasons, and have come to realize that there are "public goods" which seem to be benefiting certain groups, but the societal cost benefit analysis merits it. For example, I think there is a societal benefit to stability. And often times our capitalist system not only doesn't preserve this, but does it at the same time as NOBODY gaining any benefits. I'll give you an example: take the diner Joe Jr's on 6th Ave and 12th St (never ate there... well, maybe once or twice, but I couldn't even tell you when). Lease renewal came up, Landlord wanted huge increase, they fought and no the space is sitting vacant. I'm willing to bet that the amount of rent that the landlord collects in the 5 year period starting from the vacancy will be less than Joe Jr's would have paid.

Now, am I saying that a f'ing diner was like some museum full of societal benefits? No, of course not. But I can say that the wholesale turnover of the shops that made The Village The Village IS detrimental to all of NYC. And the same goes for lots of other things where bald faced capitalism hasn't worked, even for those on the collecting side.

Do I think RS/RC is the answer? Nope. But I do see that there are societal advantages to stability, and it would behoove us to try to find one's that did work.

30yrs - agreed that we need regulation - we need to protect society from the evil and greedy - although I think the owner of the diner has every right to get rid of the diner - what's to say that he won't build something even better? If we don't allow change then we can never be better than we are now.

The best way for stability in housing is to build enough of it and have people buy it. But personally I think stability in housing is completely overrated. If people want a community then they can find it even in Manhattan among market rate renters. City's without rent regulation seem to have much better "senses of community" than we do - so if RS's goal is housing stability then it is failing.

It's very hard to design social policy so that only those who "should" benefit do. Also, society is never likely to agree as to who should receive RS-type largesse. For example (based on cases I know IRL):

1. Downtown bachelor pad of successful prof. guy in his 70s who hasn't lived there FT since the 70s (moved out to burbs w/ fam.) but managed to keep his lease and has now passed on apt to daughters - not worthy, IMO.

2. Uptown RC studio of senior in his/her 70s on fixed income - worthy, IMO (I know about 5 cases like this).

3. Uptown RS studio of man-child in 40s/50s who's never really had to look for a job because of low rent. Has Mcjobs like dog-walking, etc. to make rent & groceries - I'm ambivalent about this. On the other hand, if man-child
had an interesting job (opera singer, etc.), I think I would be okay with this.

4. RS apt of 40ish middle-class family - wealthy enough to move to burbs, but clinging on to city life & schools with "cheap" rental - worthy, IMO.

I could go on. Bet no-one on this thread will agree with who I think is "worthy".

NYC - 40ish "middle class" family -weatlhty enough to move to burbs" wealthy enough to have a second home in the country? worthy? IMO NO

ph41 10023's hypothetical family didn't mention a second home. I believe that's where a lot of people (me included) draw the line on RS...family as she described it, worthy.
I would also argue that an opera singer is no more worthy than a dog walker (unless its a designated "artist" building like the one on 42nd and 9th-10th). The dog walker may be dealing with some developmental or mental health issues that preclude his getting a "real" job and while many people would disagree with me, I don't put opera singers (or ad execs) in the same class of "essential people" with cops, firefighters, nurses, teachers, doctors etc.

nyc10023 - I think the only way to do it is by income, age, and health (which includes mental and physical disabilities). Society as a whole should watch after the poor, the elderly, and the disabled.
If you're poor because you chose to be an opera singer then you chose your course in life. I chose to do something that I hate on a day to day basis so that in the end I have enough money to do what I want (and so will my kids). I mean who likes being a landlord of rent stabilized buildings???
My kids will be able to afford to be opera singers if they wish, because I will subsidize there lifestyle. If you're a teacher again no sympathy from me. You chose the profession knowing what it pays. But you chose it because it not only pays in $$$ in pays in emotional returns as well. We all make choices. There are different levels of pay and different levels of job satisfaction. If you chose a job that doesn't pay anything but has off the charts job satisfaction then I should subsidize your rent. You should get roommates or marry someone rich.

Lizyank: I'm a little anti-dogwalker because many of them don't clean up the poop on the sidewalk. Opera singers, musicians, clothing designers, poets, writers, actors, nurses, cops, firefighters, teachers, all good.

30years:

Here is yet another study, based on 2008 data, showing that the benefits of rent stabilization mostly accrue to Manhattan. And 120,000 high income ($100k+) NYers benefit (120,001 when AR gets her Stuy Town RS apt).

I am still waiting for you to post some third-party research to support your theory that the boros get the benefit of rent stabilization.

120k out of about a million? better than i would have thought.

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/ny-rent-laws-enabling-out-of-town-luxury/23919/

Thousands of New Yorkers, taking advantage of rent-stabilization laws designed to keep middle-class New Yorkers in the city, are using the money they are saving on rent to buy weekend or vacation homes outside New York in places such as Florida, Connecticut, and even Switzerland.

A New York Sun investigation disclosed these examples of New Yorkers living perfectly legally in rent-stabilized apartments while owning weekend or vacation homes:

* A doctor who specializes in weight loss, Howard Shapiro, lives in a two-bedroom rent-stabilized apartment overlooking Central Park and owns a house in West Palm Beach, Fla., that was assessed at nearly $1 million, according to Florida tax records.

* William and Mada Hapworth, both doctors, have a three-bedroom rent-stabilized apartment on Central Park South with park views. They also own a Norwalk, Conn., home on Long Island Sound that is assessed at more than $1.6 million.

* Ruth Golbin, a retiree, lives in a rent-stabilized two-bedroom apartment and also owns a Key Biscayne, Fla., condominium assessed at more than $520,000. A Dade County employee in the Department of Building and Zoning, Asela Martell-Molina, said the condominium, located in the Towers of Key Biscayne, would sell for about $1 million.

* Andreas Scott-Hansen, retired from the shipping business, and his wife, Beatrice, have lived in the same rent-stabilized Fifth Avenue apartment, overlooking Central Park, for 37 years. They have owned two houses in Ridgefield, Conn., most recently a 2,600-square-foot home assessed at $825,000.

* One man who lives in a rent-stabilized apartment with views of Central Park said he flies to Switzerland once a month to stay in his $1 million, three-bedroom house outside Geneva.

Rent regulation in New York began in 1947, in part to relieve a historic housing shortage and to maintain diversity in New York City's neighborhoods. There are now 867,697 rent-stabilized apartments and 59,324 rent controlled apartments in the five boroughs, roughly half the city's total rental housing stock, according to the state Department of Housing and Community Renewal. Rent increases for those apartments are set annually by a government board. Living in a rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartment and owning a second home is legal, and there is no database of people who fall into that category.

It is illegal for a tenant to occupy a rent-stabilized or -controlled apartment if it is not their primary residence. Because the city and state do not monitor these occurrences, a cottage industry of attorneys, brokers, private investigators, and buyout specialists has grown to fill the niche. Most of the evidence of rent-regulated tenants who own second homes is unearthed in the recurring effort of owners to oust tenants who live elsewhere and sublet their rent-regulated apartments or rent them out as short-term hotel rooms.

A real estate attorney for Greenberg Traurig, Steven Kirkpatrick, said, "Somebody can own a second home, a $2 [million] or $3 million dollar home, use it two or three days a week, and technically it is not their primary residence."

John Gilbert, a top executive at Rudin Management, a real estate company with a portfolio that includes rent-regulated apartments, said there are "thousands of examples of people who live in stabilized housing and have second homes."

"The fact that you are able to pay below-market rents, you are obviously much more able, with greater disposable income, to purchase second homes, a vacation home, a ski house, or a house at the beach," said Mr. Gilbert, who is the former president of the Rent Stabilization Association, a landlords group that opposes rent-control laws.

Those few tenants who were willing to discuss their deals defended their practices.

Ms. Scott-Hansen acknowledged to the Sun that the below-market rent on her rent-stabilized apartment seems "like a deal," but she added, "It's fair. I'm not going to move out because I have another house. I'm sure you wouldn't either."

An editor, Kenneth Magill, and his spouse, Ludmila, who works in advertising, reside during the week in a rent stabilized two-bedroom apartment in northern Manhattan, and on the weekends drive up to their converted three bedroom house in upstate New York. The couple decided to purchase their upstate home and stay in their rent-stabilized apartment rather than buy another Manhattan apartment.

They bought the house for $115,000 in 2003, and have since spent an additional $50,000 on landscaping, an added bedroom, and a hot tub. Mr. Magill is a former employee of the Sun. Now they pay about $1,000 a month in rent for their city apartment and about $900 a month on the mortgage for their upstate home.

"For the cost of keeping the elevators running in a Midtown co-op, I have a house upstate," Mr. Magill said. "I'm personally opposed to rent-control and -stabilization, but I didn't make the rules, and I have to do what's best for me and my family."

The man who shuttles once a month between Manhattan and his house in Switzerland would speak only on condition of anonymity. He said his New York landlord has tried to oust him but has failed because no laws are being broken. "That's the law in New York. If the law changes I will have to pay more. In the meantime, I'm going to take advantage of it," he said, asking, "Why should I feel guilty?"

New York's rent regulation laws are widely known as among the most sweeping in the country, and they have been a frequent lightning rod for controversy.

In 1997, the state Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, attempted to end the city's rent regulations. He received death threats, encountered busloads of protesters, and had an unexplained fire in one of his district offices.

Under high-rent vacancy decontrol, established in 1994, a landlord is permitted to charge market rate for a regulated apartment if its rent rises above $2,000 and it becomes vacant. Many argue the city's entire stock of rent-stabilized and -controlled apartments will eventually be deregulated through this provision, although it may take decades to do so.

The 1994 law also established luxury decontrol, which prompts deregulation if a stabilized apartment's rent is more than $2,000 and its occupants' income is $250,000 for at least two years in row. In 1997, as the result of a deal brokered by Mr. Bruno, that income threshold was lowered to $175,000.

Still, under a loophole, a tenant who consistently earns more than $175,000 a year can legally live in a rent-stabilized apartment if its rent is less than $2,000 a month.

The associate director of New York State Tenants and Neighbors, a tenant advocacy group, Michael McKee, said that it was "very rare" for a wealthy family to occupy a rent-regulated apartment. "The income of a tenant is and should be irrelevant," Mr. McKee said. "Many people start out in a rent-regulated apartment when they are making less money, and they make more over time. Some people think they should be forced to move. I disagree with that," he said.

"The rent regulation system is constantly under attack. If you want to talk about people who have money, talk about landlords - these are some of the richest people on the planet, and they are certainly not losing money on rent stabilized apartments," Mr. McKee said.

Mr. Bruno told the Sun that further reform of rent stabilization and rent control is unlikely until 2011, when the current law expires. "When we did the luxury decontrol, there were others who were bucking, kicking, and screaming all the way," Mr. Bruno said.

Nevertheless, he said that his legislative effort led to the deregulation of at least 20,000 apartments that were occupied by wealthy residents.

A spokesman for the state Department of Housing and Community Renewal said 1,900 certified apartments have been deregulated since 1997 because of luxury decontrol.

Mr. McKee, the tenant advocate, said that many of those units were deregulated incorrectly, because tenants failed to submit paperwork, or to the detriment of poor tenants that needed the below-market rents.

Landlords who are watching the real estate market and who now must bear higher fuel and insurance costs say they are tired of subsidizing their tenants' vacation homes.

A veteran New York building owner and attorney, Maria Sachs, said that some owners of buildings with rent-stabilized apartments "bear this burden of supporting someone who is better off than they are."

"It is an irrational system of distribution on the benefit side, in terms of who gets the apartments, and on the other side - the imposition of the costs on the landlord," Ms. Sachs said. "The person who can afford the second house isn't really in need."

An agent who is paid by landlords to broker buyouts with tenants in rent-regulated apartments, Michael Grabow, said he receives frequent complaints from owners about tenants with second homes. "I tell them, you may not like this law, but it's the law," Mr. Grabow said. "Tenants who pay $450 a month are accumulating a lot of money. They want a place in the Adirondacks, and there is not a thing you can do about it. They get angry, but I tell them, 'It's not the tenants' fault. Be angry at the system.'"

In October, Mayor Bloomberg outlined his administration's expanded second-term housing plan to build or preserve 165,000 units for low-and moderate-income New Yorkers by 2013. The cost of the 10-year plan, from 2003 to 2013, is about $7.5 billion. Both candidates in the recent mayoral election spoke of the need for more "affordable housing" in the city and vowed to create new units to be set aside at below-market prices.

Mr. Gilbert, of Rudin Management, said that the private sector would bear more of the cost of building new housing if rent regulation is abolished or phased out at a quicker pace.

"If there is an upside for investors and developers, they will build. If you cap their profits with rent stabilization, they won't build," he said. "There will always be a need for the government to meet the needs of the housing segment that the private sector can't meet. But you would have less of a need if you had more of a free market."

nysun? really. what a horribly inaccurate article. RS had nothing to do with income levels, until recently.

rs: stick with youtube.

or don't. because you post stupid youtube shit also.

I'm really starting to believe the CC=AR discussions....

all you have to do is have the courage to come meet us. until then, hide away.

she's a much nicer person than i am.

So you are saying nobody who has a rent stabalized apartment has bought a second home?

Rsider: come to the next meet & greet.

that would mean you would have to get out of your robe and take a shower.

rs, i'm saying what i've always said. that you can't generalize. you can't look at a group of people and condemn them all because some have summer homes. you can't look at people who are being foreclosed because they were involved in speculative behavior and apply that to the majority of underwater homeowners.

i'm saying that generalizations are pat and easy and lazy. and self-gratifying. people are f'ng hurting. and to feel superior because you didn't make the same wrong mistakes just makes you a petty little person.

Why do you feel superior? Why do you feel entitled to money damages from a party who has not damaged you?

Rent control woman on a parlor floor Gold Coast apartment
owns this
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/country-house/martha-clarkes-connecticut-farmhouse-the-new-york-times-12708-071461

oh no...another new asshole.

you can't look at a group of people and condemn them all because some have summer homes. you can't look at people who are being foreclosed because they were involved in speculative behavior and apply that to the majority of underwater homeowners.

Just to be clear.. An argument can be made for some form of temporary safety net.
And clearly its wrong to condemn the majority based on the acts of a pouplation subset, but to benefit from rent stabilization when one's circumstances don't necessitate it... ISSUE!

ok rs. i ask you the same question i asked earlier. assume you like your pcv home. what do you do? leave it in a fit of pique because the situation isn't optimizing profits for the city? although your condo isn't optimizing taxes as well.

how is your position more tenable than mine? they both have public policy implications, and i think the ones involved in PCV/ST are better than the ones for new construction, given how i've seen both systems work. but that's neither here nor there. quit being so fucking smug about what you get or don't get. i fully admit that this housing opportunity is like the lottery. no question. and i think there are both good and horrible aspects to RS. but my view is certainly not black and white. as janet maslin just wrote about the same rand biography, rand HATED gray. but there's very little but gray.

Which color entitles you to money damages even though you haven't been harmed?

greed?

whoops, I meant green?

what color? the color of the court of appeals. but i'm sure you're smarter than they are. and the appellate division.

ok rs. i ask you the same question i asked earlier. assume you like your pcv home. what do you do? leave it in a fit of pique because the situation isn't optimizing profits for the city? although your condo isn't optimizing taxes as well.

From what I understand the argument that 421-A isn't optimizing revenue for the city is that the city isn't asking enough of the developers. The real estate market has changed markedly but assuming this conversation was taking place in 2004-2005, I assume your saying more tax certificates should be purchased. As I stated earlier, and you "seem" to agree, the buyer would have paid less money, so he's not benefiting.

The example of a Rent Stabalized individual is quite different, especially when he/she can afford the rent. The city isn't gaining here at all. But enough of this, we're not convincing the other and we're just talking AT EACH OTHER.