Rent regulation benefits those not in need

Tax abatements benefit those not in need. the people of NYC could really use those funds.

The abatements funded low income housing and resulted in the developer getting a higher price for their units, but nice try..

Typical ar- point the finger at something else, distort the argument, and hope you forget the original point because she can't argue that one.

ar- are you for means testing rent stabilized apartments?

It lesses her guilt about taking up rent stabilized housing she does not need.

I guess you weren't reading the news when they decided to discontinue the program. But nice try.

I don't feel guilty at all. RS was partially created possibly primarily created to promote stability and population retention. I'm doing wonderfully in those areas

and as you well know I rented a market rate apt. why should I feel guilty that the court reverted it to rs while I was a resident? are you actually suggesting I ought to pick up and leave the home I've improved. Moronic tool

aboutready- why won't you answer rs' question on the other thread?

ar never feels guilty taking handouts.

The perfect strawman: rent regulations are not intended to be benefits for the needy, and just look at them -- they DON'T!!! So the program is successful at achieving its goal.

But I like Observer's snarky tone in pointing out the comical worthlessness and self-interest of a CBC study that reaches the conclusion it did!

I have a great idea: double the income cap to $350K, and then in a few years CBC and its ilk can provide an anecdote of a "hypothetical" elevator operator making $340K and living in a Classic Nine at Park and 63rd for $1800.

Here's another example:

A U.S. Congressman (Charlie Rangel) making over $200,000 has THREE rent-stabilized units in the same building in Harlem.

Not only is it illegal for him to have ANY rent-stabilized unit (thanks to his Congressional salary), it's illegal for ANYONE to have more than one.

So...let's kill the entire program because rangel is a crook?

And even if it's not illegal(for argument's sake it sets a terrible example). At this stage of his life, Mr Rangel clearly does not need these rent-stabilized units. He would elevate himself several notches in the public's eyes if he made some statement to that effedct and take up a private residence.

Then the rent regulations intentions are wrongheaded and should be ended. They are harmful to the overall market.

To the extent that we do need to help the lowest tier, the least bad way would be direct payments/credits to the renter. This would prevent the building of projects where people can hide income and/or bribe supers or officials. There's also no benefit in creating a system where it is all too obvious who the beneficiaries are, which cannot help self esteem. Furthermore once thier income improves they lose elligibility.

Rangel no longer has three rent-regulated apartments, so it's dishonest of you to say he does. But it was never illegal ... rent-regs set caps on rents, not floors. His landlord wasn't overcharging him.

And similarly, the income cap is used to allow a landlord who CHOOSES to invoke luxury decontrol, but the landlord is not obligated to do so on any given apartment. Thus, landlords are given the luxury of choice under the program.

RS, your project for today is to write your legislators and demand an increase in funding for Section 8 vouchers.

Rs, you were the one who stated they'd never be able to rent all the units here. By your stupid logic I'm doing the landlord a favor staying here

alan, check your facts. And nice of you to defend a Congressman who takes advantage of the system to get RS handouts.

That should certainly ease your mind..

I'd hate to feel I'd been taking advantage of ts and black rock.

Some justify robbery by saying those that were robbed were too rich and didn't need the money...

"alan, check your facts." ... specifically?

I defended the landlord's right to give preferential rents, which he is permitted to do under rent stabilization. You just hate landlords.

ar- please answer rs' question. I just want to confirm that you are an anti-semitic bigot.

I'm fairly certain the mortgage deduction benefits those not in need and many would buy if it didn't exist

Besides licc and rs, neither of you give a rats ass about the need of people

It's always about your needs, which is to provide less to those in need. for their own good, of course

rs, exactly how am I committing robbery because ts was forced to quit breaking the law?

residents of stuy town ended up rent-stabilized as ts and blackrock failed to game the system in a way that would have hurt said residents economically. a way they assumed they would be able to execute---this you label "robbery...from the ...too rich"

ts and blackrock should get some bailout money given this, no?

"It's always about your needs, which is to provide less to those in need. for their own good, of course" ... you left out their sociopathic need to create an endless series of exactly the same thread again and again, with nothing new to say. In fact, nothing to say at all, just copypasted "articles" and "studies" that amount to sermonettes from the lunatic fringe.

ah, you must be unaware that riversider's views are quite "complex" and he's not easily understood. you might be missing something

although I doubt it

I'm all for helping people who cannot help themselves. Rent stabilization does not do this.

aboutready is all for handouts to people who don't need them. Elitism and arrogance.

ar- please answer rs' question.

-- handouts "for those in need" -- HA! These are not temporary situations -- these people cling to these properties for decades at the expense of the landlords. people know a good thing when they have it and won't try to pull themselves up --

why should people save for retirement when it can be the governments problem at the end of the day?Tyranny of the majority. It really stinks.

How about those income tax real estate deductions? Those are hardly being used to help those in need and are the equivalent of a tax-payer housing subsidy for those who own.

If it was up to you people, NYC would be populated only by insanely rich people and people in projects. Great mix. Don't you think there are bigger problems in the world than "all the poor people stealing from the rich?" I mean come on now.
GOVT SUBSIDIES TO BIG OIL BENEFIT THOSE NOT IN NEED

You always try to change the subject when you have nothing to say on point.

I've said before- phase out the mortgage deduction and end rent stabilization and end welfare for those who made their own irresponsible decisions.

and you forgot your other free-market personal-responsibility goal: eliminate Big Government military, and let each person fend for himself or hiswifesself.

licc, then I guess your rent/buy analyses will have to change.

please, ive said many a time what my real opinions are regarding rent stabilization. why bother to do so again? why does rs bother?

The merry SE followers of Rand
Despise the public helping hand
Tax benefits should only inure
To their benefit, they concur
Cutting off the poor would be quite grand

Not just the military ah! arm the people and get rid of the police! every citizen is a soldier we should be allowed to protect ourselves without the tyranny of govt control

The pont of the thread was the non-poor benefiting from rent regulation.

ar and alan have typical reactions when they know their arguments are stupid- change the subject and set up straw men.

But you've posted on that issue so many times. or linked I should say. I certainly don't see any new arguments. and that's rather rich really. this is hardly the only thread to go a bit off topic recently and relatively it hardly strayed

It's bad enough that you start these threads incessantly. It's just poor manners to tell people how they should or should not reply

the point is to highlight the abounding hypocrisy and self-contradiction in this thread.
yeah no more handouts, and we can all sing..

I am an Antichrist
I am an anarchist
I know what I want and
I know how to get it
I wanna destroy passerby

'Cause I wanna be anarchy
In the city

Anarchy for the UK
It's coming sometime maybe
I give a wrong time stop a traffic line
Your future dream is a shopping scheme

'Cause I wanna be anarchy
In the city, the only way to be

How many ways
To get what you want?
I use the best, I use the rest
I use the enemy, I use anarchy

'Cause I wanna be anarchy
In the city, follow me

Is this the MPLA?
Or is this the UDA?
Or is this the IRA
I thought it was the UK
Or just another country
Another council tenancy

And I wanna be anarchy
And I wanna be anarchy
And I wanna be anarchy
And I wanna be anarchy
And I wanna be anarchy
Get pissed destroy

"The pont of the thread was the non-poor benefiting from rent regulation."

... that's not a point. It's a total disconnect.

It's like saying that non-albinos benefit from rent regulation. And?

I'd say there is far more meaning in "the poor don't benefit from the tax benefits given to those who borrow to purchase real estate, who are by definition not poor"

Wow that was bad.

Trenchant as usual rs. Perhaps it's time to have a look-see for a you-tube that might speak more eloquently?

How about this. Housing tax breaks benefit those not in need

Rent stabilization defenders point to affordability for those who can't afford market rents to defend it. This shows that argument to be incorrect.

Now try to change the subject again.

"Rent stabilization defenders point to affordability for those who can't afford market rents to defend it."

No, they don't.

alan likes to make up facts a lot.

AR - "I don't feel guilty at all. RS was partially created possibly primarily created to promote stability and population retention. I'm doing wonderfully in those areas"

specious logic - it promotes stability by ensuring that rents don't rise at such a great clip that tenants are priced out of their homes. Are you claiming that you are unable to afford the market rent? No matter what way you spin it, you are getting a gov't handout, and more importantly, you are taking a subsidy that should rightfully go to a teacher or firefighter, etc. who otherwise can't afford to live in Manhattan but whose presence adds value to our community, unlike say, a corporate lawyer.

Rent stabilization defenders point to a critical mass of affordable housing, to maintain income diversity. They are not bothered, however, by anecdotes of the non-poor being included in that income diversity.

Rent stabilization opponents create a straw man regarding affordability for those who can't afford market rents, for the sole purpose of burning that straw man ... poor guy. Or non-poor guy; doesn't matter which.

Why do you think that there was no income test for the first >50 years of rent regulations in NYC? An oversight, in a program that's supposed to be for the poor? Of course not.

AR is participating in rent stabilization as it was intended to be.

Rent stabilization was enacted as a response to price gouging which is allowed when a landlord can pick an arbritary rent number every year or so and hope the renter is desperate enough to bite

it attempts to provide stability. which is exactly the purported goal of increasing home ownership

It wasn't FOR the poor at all. It was against the landlords who were indiscriminate in their increases

"RS was partially created possibly primarily created to promote stability and population retention"

And it did a horrible, horrible job of that in the 70s and 80s...

In fact, it worsened it as the housing stock got worse and landlords abandoned (and often burned) buildings that they couldn't make money from.

lets also figure this... how many people intentionally make less because they have a rent stabilized apartment?

it was intended to be a temporary, emergency measure following WWII since no new housing had been built b/c of the war. As a matter of fact, all I hear from AR all day is about the incredible 'shadow inventory' and the glut of housing in NYC. Clearly that means we should end rent regulation once and for all, as the conditions it was meant to alleviate are no longer prevalent. Hmm, let's see her lead the charge for equality!

swe I highly suspect that rs was in no way the cause of the blight of the 70s and 80s. I think the city would have had much more flight without rs

see, e.g., stuy town

Oh, sure, printer. We'll just move all the middle-class elderly into new luxury construction

RS was partially created possibly primarily created to promote stability and population retention

No, It started out as solving a WWII problem and then became a tool of politicians. It took the government 108 years to end the phone tax enacted to pay for the Spanish American War.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2006-05-25-phone-tax_x.htm

you went off looking for a link and that was the best you could do?

It was enacted after landlords ignored a request by the govt to self-regulate price gouging

"And it did a horrible, horrible job of that in the 70s and 80s...

In fact, it worsened it as the housing stock got worse and landlords abandoned (and often burned) buildings that they couldn't make money from."

No, swe, we've been through this a thousand times. The situation that you describe happened with even greater vigor in every larger northern city in the US that did NOT have rent regs past the 1950s. Let's commemorate the dead: Baltimore, Detroit, Newark, St. Louis, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, etc. etc. No rent regs past the 1950s.

When you've internalized that fact set, try looking up "causation".

RS is almost right: it started in NYC around WWI (although I don't think it was to solve a WWI problem, just a rent-gouging problem in the face of the inability of the free market to create adequate housing stock, and the inability of the free market to create adequate rapid transit to bring people from far-flung homes to central-location jobs.

You have your answer alan- rs wasn't originally means tested because it was meant to be temporary. It shouldn't have turned into a permanent hand-out to those who don't need it. Rent stabilization does more harm than good and its biggest proponents are those that like to leech off the system.

Rent stabilization was enacted as a response to price gouging

In a free market , people move in response to high rents, and new builders come in and create new housing. There's so much bad economics in the posting I don't know where to begin...

Of course if you are trying Nixon Inflation Economics you could pass a law that limits increases which would only limit housing even more.

Of course rs because to you there is only economic theory (which has proven itself quite credible, no?) and no social or public policy

But regardless, you're wrong on the economics issues here also. Housing isn't like a widget. You don't just put in an order for 200000 and voilà.

What possible social benefit is there in subsidized rental housing for those who are rich enough to own vacation homes or rich politicians or just those that make enough to rent or buy in the city anyway? Why should building owners be penalized for such people.

there you go trotting out your anecdotes again. the forest, rs, keep your eyes on the forest.

alan has made a valiant attempt to explain it to you, it's not his fault you don't get it

Why should renters help owners buy?

> No, swe, we've been through this a thousand times

As I said, RS did NOT stabilize NY. It fell in the toilet. Listing other things that work or don't work doesn't change that.

It failed.

Other things failing doesn't change that.

Economics is a social science. ar you really are clueless on these things.

Riversider is right. In a functional marketplace (which was disturbed due to a World War), if landlords price gouge, others who do not will pick up the business and more supply will be added. The gougers will be forced to come down to market demand. Distorting the market with rent stabilization leads to higher market rents than otherwise and deteriorating housing stock in the rs market.

The RS haters seem to lack basic understanding of the program. It has no subsidy in it. It is not a handout, any more than any other statute reducing theft is a handout to the would-be victims of theft. All it does is prevent landlords from appropriating the surplus created by the vibrancy of the city -- a surplus to which landlords have no moral, legal, ethical or economic claim -- in order to fix an obvious market failure.

In a competitive market, competition gives the surplus to consumers. In monopoly markets, it goes to producers, with a concomitant decrease in efficiency and productivity.

In retail rental markets, incumbent tenants have trouble moving and thus may be willing to pay rents that are above the landlord's marginal cost (which is the competitive market price). That gives landlords monopoly power. If they exploit it or prospective tenants fear they will, prospective tenants react by reducing the rents they are willing to pay. This leads to a standard market for lemons market failure. Absent a solution, it leads to market collapse (as seen in many US cities, where there is no viable long term middle class rental market). People who would be better off in long term rentals, and builders who could provide better quality housing for less are unable to do so.

We have a number of expensive and inefficient work-arounds to mitigate the market failure. The main US one is buying and selling generic houses for relatively short term occupancy; naturally, this leads to reduced quality and inefficiency, since builders find it hard to charge short-term buyers for long term benefits. In NYC, we also have coops, in which tenants buy the landlord in order to force it to give them an efficient long term lease priced at marginal cost -- but society loses out on the benefits of specialization and diversification, and governance problems make keeping the housing stock up to date virtually impossible (that's why NYC coops often lack basic fifty year old technology such as W/D, functional heat and a/c). And condos, which seek to imitate single family home ownership, including inefficiently high transaction costs, financing that can only work because of government subsidies and risk assumption, the inefficient emphasis on flash rather than substance, and yet more governance and collective action problems.

RS solves the bargaining problem more efficiently, without requiring Federal subsidies or risk-assumption. It simply replicates the standard commercial lease found in competitive markets and thereby prevents landlords from abusing their partial monopoly. RS is the reason why NYC has a successful residential rental market, unlike most US cities, which suffer from market failure; if RS were extended into the luxury market, that market would be deeper and broader too.

The RS haters appear to combine economic illiteracy with a basic hatred of ordinary Americans -- they simply can't stand the idea that a middle class person somewhere might not be getting ripped off. Or perhaps they are simply profiteers and predators, hoping to gain some monopoly profit from the temporary shortages of condo/coop properties that would result if they succeeded in destroying the legal underpinnings of our rental market.

"All it does is prevent landlords from appropriating the surplus created by the vibrancy of the city -- a surplus to which landlords have no moral, legal, ethical or economic claim."

Actually, the owner of property legally expects that he will profit if the value of the property goes up. Nor do I see how that's moral or unethical, but maybe i'm just ethically challenged.

Anyone who expects to be able to raise the rent in violation of the law has a pretty strange set of expectations, but compared to some of the economics in this discussion, I suppose a loose grip on legal reality is nothing to be worried about.

rent-stabilized properties change hands all the time. the buyers know that they are rs. developers are still building projects that are partially rs to reap tax benefits

"As I said, RS did NOT stabilize NY. It fell in the toilet. Listing other things that work or don't work doesn't change that.
It failed.
Other things failing doesn't change that."

Well, except that you stated that RS worsened stability and pop retention. Which is a very different thing than saying it did not stabilize it. Alan is right to point you towards understanding causation here.

"All it does is prevent landlords from appropriating the surplus created by the vibrancy of the city -- a surplus to which landlords have no moral, legal, ethical or economic claim -- in order to fix an obvious market failure. "

If I buy a plot of land in a town because I think the town will grow, I'm not allowed to profit from it?
What about the lanlord who buys up a neighborhood and fixes them all up? No rights for him either?

And pretending thats all it does is completely ignorant.

It changes the market equlibrium. It reduces supply. Manufactured spots on the supply/demand curve create inefficiencies. Its the area under the curve.

You don't change market dynamics without changing other results.

Sorry, but thats simple economics. Now, some can be good and some can be bad, but thats just igorance pretending there aren't other effects.

Its like the putzes who think that giving out handouts has no effect other than helping the door.

No, it also creates dependencies. It also creates perverse incentives.

If nothing else, you give landlord no incentive for investing in neighborhoods.

How this is being missed is beyond me. This is just bad, bad logic.

"What about the lanlord who buys up a neighborhood and fixes them all up? No rights for him either?"

Even worse, the landlord can't profit if he fixes up his own building. So rent control just encourages crappy ill-repaired buildings. Even if you think that the renter should receive some economic benefit from an increase in the underlying property, rent control is a horrible way to allocate that benefit.

Why should renters help owners buy?
No different than someone purchasing an investment property borrowing and renting it out. Somehow once it's a multi-family dwelling, people think they can dictate returns to the apartment building owner/corporation. It really does smack of a sense of entitlement by those that get this lottery benefit.

financeguy usually is off the wall with his misunderstanding of economics.

btw, you also have to love the added bonus of just not being able to get rid of lousy tenants.

Yes, that makes for an AWESOME building!

got to love a system where 99% of the responsibility is on one side of the relationship. Those sorts of things ALWAYS work out, right?

Cause LICC is the Koolest place to live....

F
L
m
A
o

how's your re holding up?

There was no opportunity to create new housing during WWII, hence rent gouging, hence r/c. (I doubt my parents would have moved into an apartment in the same building as my grandfather when they married in 1942 if they had an alternative. Then as now, connections, connections, connections.) After the war it was easy to see the benefit of maintaining rent control...for the most part New York did not suffer "white flight" and wholesale desertion by the middle class that many other cities did (although parts of the Bronx and Brooklyn declined significantly). In fact much of the "block busting" that took place in NYC was in owner occupied or too small for r/c housing.
When the cost structure for rentals was completely out of whack with allowed rents, r/c was scrapped in favor of r/s in 1971. Once again, apartments were placed on r/s, not people. It was never meant to a program for the poor, or even the middle class. In theory Nelson Rockefeller had wanted to rent he would have covered by rs

RC/RS gave the city a stable generation or two of middle class (and in some cases higher) tax paying citizens who looked upon their house as a "home" in which they had as highly a vested interest as any owner and to which many made improvements they would theoretically never profit from (but would enjoy living with). It might not be necessary now, but 30 to 40 years age they saved the city any number of potential dire fates. It wasn't Park Avenue and Central Park West, not enough critical mass among the wealthy to ride out the virtual collapse of city services and begin to rebuild.

The stories of the movie star with the $1400 2 bedroom on CPW are today largely urban legend, much like "Welfare Cadillac Queen" stories that abounded in the 1970s and 80s. Yes, there are many people still enjoying the benefits of rs and a few with rc. At this part a significant portion (and probably close to 100% of the remaining rc population) are elderly.

I think some parts of RS could be cleaned up to prevent abuse (succession rights for one thing. Succession should be available to a spouse/partner or someone who has lived in an apartment for at least five or maybe more years. This business of "move in with grandma for six months and get her $800 1br" should not be allowed.) I am in favor of vacancy decontrol for luxury units and perhaps the gradual phasing out of rs once someone's income reaches a certain point. Some may surprise you and choose not to seek large increases from long time, guaranteed rent on the first tenants especially if they have a mix of them and more transient people at market rate.

A city with no middle class will not work. At least currently, without significant new Mitchell Lama type co-op housing programs (good luck with that) rent stabilization is the last best hope for making sure it does.

"...for the most part New York did not suffer "white flight" and wholesale desertion by the middle class that many other cities did"

huh? really? 'parts' of brooklyn? we kidding with this?

"Its like the putzes who think that giving out handouts has no effect other than helping the door."

Come on, let's keep the door out of this, even if it does hit you on the ass on the way out.

"No, it also creates dependencies. It also creates perverse incentives.
If nothing else, you give landlord no incentive for investing in neighborhoods."

I agree with you there - it does create these incentives, but I don't think that in and of itself is enough to scrap the thing (as some are strongly suggesting here). There are ways to mitigate perverse incentives, even after they've been uncovered. And I'm not sure how most landlords "invest" in their neighborhoods. "Investing" in a neighborhood comes from many sources - local business, community organizations, public funding, etc. Landlords, at least those who actively participate in their neighborhoods, are but a small piece of the puzzle here.

well if we are gonna immediately stop all transfer payments... let's start with home interest mortgage deductions and $500K cap gain exclusion.....

NYC RE rent control is PEANUTS....

It's like going after the hookers and not the Johns.... ITZ fking INSANE.

@ printer... like the gov't laxing its freddie/fannie credit standards so that "minorities" get a fair shake in chasing the bubble too?

FLMAO

HOME "owner" stabilization = GOOD

Rent "home" stabilization = BAD

-shrug- Fk if I understand all the borkers/re bullz on this SE.....

Clueless nimrods of ill repute..

Cindy Lauper & Nora Ephron rented at the Apthorp at rediculous rates.

This country need to revisit the whole topic of subsidies. Rent subsidies for those who don't need it is a waste of money. Home owner subsidies even worse.

social security is the most worstest

long live the projects

come on guys, just think of all those poor, poor landlords...

"So rent control just encourages crappy ill-repaired buildings."

Please see http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/20979-apartments-being-shown-in-neglected-condition for the magical power of the invisible hand of the free market.

"huh? really? 'parts' of brooklyn? we kidding with this?"

The SFR parts without rent regs.

"This business of "move in with grandma for six months and get her $800 1br" should not be allowed."

... and indeed it is not.

If I buy a nuclear power plant, I can't operate it in any manner I choose?

I just want to make it five posts in a row. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

It's not about those poor landlords. Why pity them? And why pity ric and upper middle class renters. Neither need our help, but legally owners should have more rights.

Owners still have Miranda rights.

... but they have to axe for them now.

If I buy a nuclear power plant, I can't operate it in any manner I choose?

Of course not, since in doing so you are harming third parties. The nuclear power plant is exactly the type of situation government must regulate. A rental agreement is between two parties(no third party harmed).

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

.

"The stories of the movie star with the $1400 2 bedroom on CPW are today largely urban legend"

Try Bianca Jagger living on Park Avenue for peanuts...

_____________

and to all the people who say things like "LLs are rich enough" or "come on guys, just think of all those poor, poor landlords...", you are showing how dumb you really are. Banks own buildings, most LLs are working people trying to make money in a capitalistic society, not huge corporations.

You need people need to stop looking at individual examples and realize this hurts a lot more people than it helps. lol @ the people complaining that investors make money on investments.

__________________

"Rent stabilization was enacted as a response to price gouging which is allowed when a landlord can pick an arbritary rent number every year or so and hope the renter is desperate enough to bite"

Ah, you cant rent something unless you find a tenant willing to rent it for that price. When you do, than concept is know as...... wait for it.... MARKET RENT