rent stabilized

There are many RS units that are no bargain at all. Wash. Heights is littered with them, come on up and choose one. You can live in a large prewar one bedroom on Riverside Drive and 158th street for $1100 per month. 1/2 block to the train and in 15 minutes you can be in prime upper west territory. There are plenty of affordable units through out the city, just not in places like the West Village,Soho,Tribeca etc..
Soho Court, 284 Mott and 100 Jane Street are all all RS...cheap? No.

i'm looking for an apart. on the uws, wash. hts. is too far up for me...i found a one bedrom for $1450 but it was in such bad shape i thought I would faint from the smell.

you'll have better luck looking in the manhattan valley, which is in the upper 90s up to 106 around central park west and amsterdam. The neighborhood is pretty nice and a lot less expensive than 96th and below. Pine Management is a big landlord around there.
http://www.pinemanagement.com/

Also, no one is going to post a rent stabilized apartment on craigslist. Brokers have people on waiting lists, friends, referrals to draw from. You only post a good deal on craigslist if someone else doesn't take it already ;). Go up to the neighborhoods that you like and go find some old school real estate offices that look like they belong in the 50s. Most of those brokers are not in REBNY, so they don't cobroke and they don't post on streeteasy, OLR or the NYTimes, etc....

My girlfriend works for one of those in the Village, they have them in the Upper West side too.

Best

There are plenty of RS apartments out there. What you must be sure to ask though, is what is the actual "legal rent" of the unit. In some cases, the LL may in fact be registering the apt. w/DHCR at a considerably higher rent than the tenant is paying. If this is the case, it is crucial that you make sure that your lease stipulates that all future rent increases be only the Rent Guidelines Board allowable percentages, based upon the agreed amount in your initial lease. Otherwise, you will be royally screwed & subject to huge increases.

snezan..that's a great idea regarding the realty co. thanks

http://gonofee.com/no-fee-apartments/agentType/View/PropertyID/176.aspx

look at that! a 2 bedroom/ 2 bathroom in a new building with 24x7 doorman for $770. there's an income restriction though, bet it RS. if you are a free lancer that studied creative writing you are in good luck with that one.

now, who do i know that earns only (2 people) $28,875- $30,700 per household working full time!!?!? i'm afraid none of my friends does...

notadmin, i believe one person in the household can be homemaker, stay at home, etc... . My parents made around that much when I was growing up. And they paid $900 to live in Astoria.

sure. a single income household, but what type of full time job gives you $30k/year? the NYPL?

wow.. i gotta get poorer to get better housing.....

perfect strategy: get a small/stable salary at NYPL, lock in rent at $770,... then upgrade to a normal wage job... isn't that genius? that way you end up paying less in housing expenses than what your colleagues pay in maintenance costs!!!

that is a good idea...

actually you lose your eligibility when your wage exceeds the minimum for two consecutive years i believe, and they do check. still i think you can get away with it for two years if you really wanted to save some money and don't have moral issues with it.

Hi mom and dad, I want to be on government mandated private sector support for the rest of my life, and I'm willing to live somewhere with no improvements ever.

????
is it possible to get into one of these RS apt with poor credit?
I am a single young lady, no children, i make pretty good money, have a nice job & can afford the most $1000 rent (though I would love something cheaper) & it is crazy hard for me to find an apt but a lady my age, with no job, on public assistance and 4 kids could get into one of these apts with no problem.

is there any help for a young lady like myself who has made a few mistakes in the past to mess up my credit due to the fact that i come from a society where people for the most part didn't have much so had no knowledge to guide those coming up after them in the right direction as far as finances & how important credit really will be once you become an adult, trying to correct these things now as i am older and hopefully a bit wiser, & have a steady job & the income?

it's almost like I should get a lower paying job, have a random baby & get on public assistance to get into a decent place.

I have literally, seen young women in 3 & 4 bedroom apts that do not do a thing all day!
what is that? I know they need the help but so do I!!!!!

fashion125, the thread isn't about rent-stabilized apartments anymore. It's segued into restricted-income, Section 8, etc.

In rent-stabilization per se, it's lost if rent exceeds $2K *and* household income exceeds $175K for two years in a row.

". . . it's almost like I should get a lower paying job, have a random baby & get on public assistance to get into a decent place." -Fashion125

Easy to say but not so easy to live this life. Be careful what you wish for and where your head is.

Agreed. People who are born into that life don't know anything else and somehow learn to survive, sometimes playing by the rules, sometimes bending them. But to the rest of us, its a very tough road to hoe. Order Fresh Direct because you can't stand waiting in line at the grocery store? Imagine a life of waiting in line for basic services, housing, medical care etc. Usually for hours and with numerous impatient squalling kids and more than a few people whose hygiene is something short of normative.

Besides since the 1990s reforms I believe the number of able bodied recipients of public assistance has declined dramatically and most of those who remain have a "workfare" obligation. This is a far cry from the New York of the 60s and 70s when I believe in seven city residents was, as my mother would say, "on relief".

that should have read "one in seven" city residents

Unfortunately rent stabilization has discouraged home ownership in New York. Though renting can make sense in certain temporary circumstances, what rent stabilization does is skew the natural equation and inclination toward home ownership for families in favor of renting long-term. This does not benefit families.

There is no "natural" inclination toward home ownership ... it's a construction of a society in a given time and place, and varies greatly from nation to nation (among other things).

And to the extent that it's popular, it requires all kinds of incentives like tax breaks and government-backed mortgage programs.

And for some families, the flexibility and lower cost of renting is more beneficial than being tied to a particular home for the long term, so you cannot just say that it does not benefit families -- even those who are not in rent stabilized homes.

Alanhart, our American society. Today. Not other nations. Not 250 years ago.
Tax incentives support the preferred option. If owning weren't preferred by the majority, it would not be supported.
As for some families preferring renting, yes, there are always anomalies. There are always families with gambling fathers, alcoholic mothers, spouses who aren't faithful, parents who mistreat or neglect their kids. You hardly make a point or mask your rental motives.

You are so naive. Or intentionally misleading.

Do you think that was an intelligent response? Or did you throw in the towel? Why are you against ownership, family and stability?

I'm not at all against ownership. I'm 100 percent against linking it to any sort of bullshit morality issue. And I'm totally against families paying too much of their income to be tied to an illiquid asset in a potentially declining market, with still possibly future job reductions

what are your thoughts? other than ownership is good and all applepish and shit

Please, my parents moved in a rental when they married in 1942. Both left the apartment feet first, in 1994 and 2007. Unstable?
Ownership was not feasible economically. And I don't think they ever regretted it, and they did make improvements in the apartment as necessary when it went beyond when the landlords responsibility.

Your scree name suggests Chicago origin or even current residence. I believe there are also a many long time renters in Chicago. (BTW, what's up with the President of the United States lobbying for LeBron to sign with The Bulls? Little bit of an unfair advantage )

1. "mask your rental motives" ... please elaborate on this.

2. You live in a house that you own, and you and your wife work nearby. You have a great job opportunity across town, a two-hour commute. You stay put for the sake of your children, and never see them anymore. You are providing your children with stability. Or you sell your house at a loss (taking transaction costs into account), and buy a new permanent home to decorate exactly as you like. Your children start going to a new school in a new neighborhood and you and your children make new friends. You are providing your children with stability. Repeat every 2-3 years, because you don't have employment for life in American society. Today. Not other nations. Not 250 years ago.

3. If tax and mortgage incentives merely supported the preferred option, they would be unnecessary and the homeownership rate would remain constant ... right?

4. You liken renting to addictions and abusive behavior ... that's a third of the people in American society. Today. Not other nations. Not 250 years ago. (But only 15% in Spain.)

4. You liken renting to addictions and abusive behavior ... that's a third of the people in American society. Today. Not other nations. Not 250 years ago. (But only 15% in Spain.)
0---------------

DeBalls is not the type of person that's interested in what other nations do.

Countries in which people prefer renting and having a liquid, low transaction cost portfolio instead of an illiquid, high transaction cost depreciating asset as favorite investment asset DO exist... we should all look up to Switzerland, who enjoys higher income per capita than USA.

Always learn finance from those richer, not from poor DeBalls. I do understand if he has exposure to the RE mkt and is trying to profit from preaching homeownership. Those people tend to deslike long term renters. DeBalls, are you a plumber? Otherwise, I don't get him.

I am a philanderer, and my wife is an alcoholic floozy. My kids are on drugs, I think, but I don't ask because it's none of my business.

Is it best for me to continue renting, so as not to get everyone confused about the source of the family dysfunction, or will buying fix everything instantly?

I've been in a rent stabilized walk-up building for 12 years, and it's not good in this kind of market. Similar units in my bldg, that at some point destabilized, are being rented for about $400 less than what I'm paying, and new tenants are getting free rent on top of that. My landlord says he is not allowed to lower my rent, since I'm already getting the preferential rent. So whereas other renters may be getting either no increases, or negotiate reductions, I get increases every year, including this recession and the year after 9/11...

I don't know much about RS, but I think it's leal to have a lower rent than the RS amount.

rentdtabehell...i'll trade with you.

"I've been in a rent stabilized walk-up building for 12 years, and it's not good in this kind of market. Similar units in my bldg, that at some point destabilized, are being rented for about $400 less than what I'm paying, and new tenants are getting free rent on top of that. My landlord says he is not allowed to lower my rent, since I'm already getting the preferential rent. So whereas other renters may be getting either no increases, or negotiate reductions, I get increases every year, including this recession and the year after 9/11..."

Well, you live by the sword, and die by the sword ...

rentstabehell's landlord absolutely can lower his rent, and he's misusing the term "preferential rent".

A preferential rent is one that is lower than what can legally be charged. It affects only the agreed-upon period of time or current lease, and when the preferential rent ends the rent goes right back to where it would have been had there been no preferential rent.

Rent stabilization sets maximum rents, but never ever sets minimum rents.

Exactly. In a lot of buildings, the maximum rent -- going up as it has by 2-4% per year, compounded over decades -- can exceed the market rent. Just part of what makes the NYC RE market interesting.

What's really really interesting is when rent-controlled apartments have higher rents than identical rent-stabilized ones. That happens because rent control increases at a steady pace of 7.5% per year (plus various operating-expense pass-alongs and MCI pass-alongs). Rent stabilization, which has an increase that is manually set each year, has in high-inflation years had something like 9% annual increases ... but for the past couple of decades has, as with inflation, been in the 2-4% range that NWT cited.

I know of at least one pre-war in which Classic Sixes occupied by RC'd people who moved in in the 1950s and 1960s do indeed pay considerably more than their neighbors who moved into RS'd places in the 1970s and 1980s.

But if they moved in 50s/60s, most of them should have hit SCR status by now.

scrie

SCRIE (Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption) has a very low income ceiling -- something like $20K/yr. There's a lot of room between that and the $175K eviction trigger.

[SCRIE freezes the rent paid by the elderly indigent, but the govt. pays the landlord the difference between legal allowable rent and the frozen rent. It's only available for rent-regged and M-L apartments.]

lizyank, I'm sorry to hear about your parents. Out of curiosity, when you say they were renters, were they participants in any of the government regulated rental markets? Those laws skew the equilibrium, though they have nice perpetual short-term features for the renters in that they permit renewals without requiring consent of the landlord, and they place limitations on the rent without the consent of the landlord.

inonando, I'm sorry to hear about your family. I don't have many suggestions to offer though your pastor might.

I don't have a pastor, nor am I religious, but thanks for the suggestion.

Reading between the lines, though, you seem to be saying that buying won't improve my family, right?

I'm saying that you have pointed out some grave problems with your family and you are making classic victim behavior turning down all suggestions to help you out. You need to work to find a solution and I wish you luck with that.

I have always said that renting may be a good short-term solution while you get other things in order. Your family has serious problems, starting with your own infidelities and failure to take responsibility other than potentially seeking distractions such as this message board. I would advocate that you make real effort to solve your maritable problems, get your kids off drugs quickly and before it is too late, and help your wife seek a peer support group.

It is only through having a great deal of money and owning things that inonada will be able to find salvation. Because with ownership comes an inalienable god-giving right to unilaterally control everything.

alanhart...i completely agree with your last sentence...

"inonando, I'm sorry to hear about your family. I don't have many suggestions to offer though your pastor might."

"you are making classic victim behavior turning down all suggestions to help you out."

I'm confused, there was only one suggestion.

Never mind, perhaps alanhart is right. I have a great deal of money, a good amount from saved from renting instead of buying, but the problem is that just as I don't own my home, I don't own my problems either.

Therefore, once I buy I will be able to solve my problems.

The claim that renters have saved a lot of money from renting is highly circumspect. As matt pointed out, it seems unlikely that a renter would pay less to rent than they could afford to pay, either to rent or to own.

highly circumspect?

are you kidding?

Don't use big words if you don't know what they mean. LICComment = LICCMalaprop.

We rent with great circumcision

Take your pick. Circumcision, circumnavigate, circumspect, circumference, circumlocutious. All good words.

Okay. If we buy your point that people are not going to put away the extra $ saved from renting, and that they have the same budget renting as buying - in today's market, one can rent a much bigger and/or fancier place for the same NET $ every month. So?