Rent regulation benefits those not in need

Not surprised alan can't figure out the difference between a nuclear power plant and a rent stabilized handout.

The Cyndi Lauper caper is a great story. It's laid out at http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/FCAS_docs/2002FEB/30011977619962SCIV.PDF

In 2006, the owners of the Apthorp had to pay Cyndi and husband $400,000, in addition to rolling the rent back to $989 from $3750. They're still there in 10F as far as I know.

In sum, both parties tried to game the system. Lauper and husband then turned on their landlord confederates, and won big-time.

It's very clear that society has a right to step in and regulate transactions that harm third parties. Pollution issues is one example. A second example is contracting out a killing which clearly society should stop as a thrid party not part of the transaction is harmed. I also don't like depriving the land lord of his rights on the the theory that he's a fat cat.

yes it is hurting a lot of people... hurting a lot of peoples' fragile egos and warped sense of reality.. how do you guys feel about the govt handing out subsidies to companies who harm innocent people, environments and animals?

So tell me, LICcomm, what is the difference between a nuclear power plant and a rent stabilized handout, LICcomm?

didn't he bang a slave?

-shrug-

-mkt rent- like the company town grocery store... nice nice...

how do you guys feel about the govt handing out subsidies to companies who harm innocent people, environments and animals?

Simple!
If companies are breaking the law, they should be prosecuted. The issue of subsidies is different, they should be discouraged.

price gouging isnt' hurting ppl?

so in a black out, the stores charge $500/candle.. thatz cool?

You wanna take a shit, the store says.. $1K to use our toilet?

Your kid has cancer and my decides her husband needs a new porsche, so she charges you $50K for 1st visit?

Clearly all mkt price... FLMAO

Define price gouging? We're talking about charging market rent to people who are getting below market rent.

And price gouging makes no sense, The land-lord would lose his tenant who moves across the street and be left with an empty unit.

not if you are the only game in town... the definition of "price gouging."

Riversider.. you really need to understand oligopolies and their pricing strategies to understand what Rent Regs ARE. Just bc there isn't just ONE LL for the entire city does NOT mean they aren't "manipulating" mkt pricing. You should get an ivy education... oh BTW where'd ya go to school?

oh BTW, i think all Thomas Jefferson quotes should have an * next to it... and it would state....

"He banged and fathered numerous slaves"

To let the kiddums know to keep things in perspective...

mav, no one forced you to buy rs buildings

shelter is a fairly basic concept and sadly the free market doesn't always do such a good job of providing it when and where it is needed

No rs what gouging is is a market where people are forced to paY 50 percent of their take home pay because they have no other option. think petros tenants. crazily sometimes govts intervene for public policy reasons

w67th, I really wanted to go there

Your attention to detail is admirable

Anyway, a much better solution to the problem of unaffordably expensive apartments is to allow the construction of more apartments.

Zoning a few dozen 80 story buildings would be a good start.

w67 thinks that without rent stabilization, all the landlords in all of New York City would collude in order to gouge prices. And these fantasies are the defense for rent stabilization handouts. Wow.

Who in NYC has no other option but to pay 50% of their take home pay for rent? And how does rs which drives up free market rents help this?

LICC... ummmmmm... I only have a graduate degree... but me thinkz price gouging against the GIs (that actually made it back alive) was the impetus... but enlighten me LICC.

Oh you do know WHY the LLs only go thru certain borkers? right? tell me you do? right? It's a form a asymmetrical pricing information employed by ALL oligopolies... .take an Econ III using derivatives to model pricing strategies given asymmetrical information first by producers, then consumers then add in cross currency trading and let me know what you come up with...

oh... short term pricing based on MC above market price and then long term given producer exiting mkts.. m'okay

w67, your grad school called. It wants your degree back due to your embarrassingly poor analysis of the NYC rental market . . .

No rs what gouging is is a market where people are forced to paY 50 percent of their take home pay because they have no other option

It's far more likely that renters with second homes and six figure salaries are just gaming the system. Entitlement system gone wild.

thx aboutready....

no give backs on education.... parents always said, education cannot be taken away.... the converse of course is stupidity cannot be educated

"And how does rs which drives up free market rents help this?"

... no, we know that it does not drive up free market rents.

Because if that were true, massive numbers of new rental buildings would be built to take advantage of the extra-super-ultra-high non-regged rent-pot-of-gold.

... and then market rents would fall.

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

Nice glib response only shows that you really have no understanding of how ending rent subsidization for the wealthy would work, do you?

Would we raise the luxury decontrol trigger to $900K/yr AGI so that we could route out the wealthy?

Why do Dirty Republicans and Liberians keep blocking free market trade with Cuba?

oh tell me wise printer what would happen if we eliminated rs tomorrow

hmm alanhart, you really do need to read up on your history - the embargo was begun by kennedy, and has been in place/expanded by republican and democrat presidents/congress ever since. you can argue the wisdom of it, but it clearly has had bipartisan backing from the beginning.

Well, we wouldn't be subsidizing people to live in luxury housing, that much I can tell you.

Okeh, I meant to say Dirty Republicans and Liberians and right-wing Democrats. Why do they keep blocking free market trade with Cuba?

To achieve a political end. I understand that you get your political talking points from Sean Penn, so I have a newsflash for you: Fidel Castro is a very bad man.

I heard he's charismatic. Is that very bad? I know beards are very bad.

Jimmy Carter is a right-wing Democrat? alan, do you enjoy showing everyone how ill-informed you are?

It is certainly not urban legend. Thats a crock.

I had one of those crazy deals as well, a quarter to a third of market rent. And if you would have asked me then, I was still against the system. Not only for its effect on the market overall, but the fact that it kept me in a place I didn't really want but it was insane to give up.

And I know plenty of others... and few need the help. Not to mention the folks i know who use them as second homes, closets, income streams, etc.

Really want to do this right? Make illegal sublets much more punishable.

A tenant in a rent controlled prewar one bedroom told me that if the landlord didn't calculate his correct rent, he was not obligated to pay. His landlord has changed two times in twelve years. I know he has been in housing court but I don't know the details. My guess is that he's not paying his legal $400 rent (free market $2800). He probably has an illegal second home that he owns or rents somewhere. The flip side is that the apartment is a mess, with kitchen and bath that haven't been maintained for generations. The real rub is that he stalked me for a bit, so RC is not just for celebrities, but stalkers as well.

yes, awesome use of the housing court system!

(who said we don't all pay???)

well that was a meaningful, thoughtful and well-reasoned contribution. not.

LL handouts to the politicians, judges, elite will not end with reform of RS/RC. These people will always be treated kindly by the wealthy LLs looking to influence them.

Libertarians know that the more programs that exist the more opportunity for politicians to reward friends and seek votes. Not to say that there are some necessary programs and recipients society should help but clearly the system is bankrupting us and creating a class of entitled.

but where is your libertarian model society? Oh right. it's never existed. nor can it. kind of like that envisioned in Das Kapital.

"Libertarians know that the more programs that exist the more opportunity for politicians to reward friends and seek votes"

Bingo.

Libertarians also know that the less regulations that exist, the more they can get rich by screwing people.

"I had one of those crazy deals as well, a quarter to a third of market rent. And if you would have asked me then, I was still against the system."

If you were so against RS, then why did you not volunteer to pay the free market rate? You just admitted that your a hypocrite.

If you were so against RS, then why did you not volunteer to pay the free market rate? You just admitted that your a hypocrite.

That's daft. Nobody pays more than than ASK. There are lots of people who think Social Security is bad policy for the country, but they're not going to have their pay taxed and not collect. Maybe the comparison would be better if it was a clear immoral act.

no, you just admitted that you have no grasp of logic.

I'll gladly take the trade of higher rent for a better system.
If I don't get the better system, why pay more?

Not to mention, the market rate would have been lower if there was no RS in this theoretical case... and I'd have more apartment choice... and apartments would be better maintained... and...

I like my govt. handouts. The more I get from the govt, the less that goes to greedy corporations.

Q: Where do you think the gov't gets the money from
A: Your neighbors

It's amazing the lack of thought that goes into this line of thought. The gov't is not an independent 3rd party. It's all of us.

Rs...do you have chills? You have a few crazies out responding to you. Exciting?

Well now that would be horrible if the likes of Halliburton, BP and Blackwater didn't get their full due. And I'm hardly a socialist, I believe in the rational middle. But the balance was titled so far in one direction (corporate greed), we may need to restore balance by going a little more leftward for a while.

As far as the Cuban boycott goes it leakier than a (I hate to say it) offshore oil rig. It has stayed in place strictly so as not to piss off the Cuban community in Florida, a big, active voting bloc in a very key state. Now many of the fervent anti-Castroites are gone or in their sunset years and Cuban Americans who were born or grew up here, while proud of their heritage, are increasingly willing to accept what happened 50 years ago as passed and want to move on to helping the people left in Cuba.

General consensus is that the Communist government and economy in its present form will not survive the Castro brothers. Many Cuban American businesspeople are already scoping out investment opportunities for when the island is reopened. I heard a rumor Burger King and McDonalds have already awarded Havana franchises. My guess (based on nothing but logic and understanding of ethnic politics and how they remain critically important in the US) is that the Obama administration doesn't want to piss off the remnants of the "Cuba Libre" (not the drink) movement by lifting the boycott when the prognosis for Fidel, and probably Raul as well, is not good at all.

Agree with Lizyank, it's political and done to support Florida's Cuban voting block. That said, Cuba is hardly a geopolitical threat. And yes, it's only a matter of time before Cuba falls and Americans rush to buy Condos in Havana.

Of course...

Another chance at connecting.

Feels good?

"It's amazing the lack of thought that goes into this line of thought. The gov't is not an independent 3rd party. It's all of us."

Yeah, same logic behind those folks who defraud insurance companies and the like... because its a "huge company".

We should not be too worried about this. This subsidy is generally for long time members of our community, and is rarely passed on in a cycle of generational dependence. If we were subsidizing the irresponsible and creating generational dependence, this would be worthy of discussion.

Notice how the socialists just can't make an honest argument when trying to defend their system?

What does that mean? I am no socialist. But you can't kick people out after so long and change the rules on an individual who has become elderly after being a contributor to a neighborhood for so long. You CAN prevent the programs from becoming generational entitlements or from welcoming newcomers.

"Not to mention, the market rate would have been lower if there was no RS in this theoretical case... and I'd have more apartment choice... and apartments would be better maintained... and..."

... and ... you'd live in Detroit!!!

Neither of those statements make sense. The rate you would be paying would not likely be lower and it would be odd to think that you would pay less and have a better maintained apartment. Why New York City would be equivalent with Detroit and their problems isn't either

I just don't understand why people just don't understand that the reason why housing is so unaffordable in New York City is because the city won't allow apartment building to be built.

No, on behalf of somewhereelse I'd like to point out that it's because of the teachers' union.

The biggest problem with rent control laws has been that it has distorted the natural market and the normal tendency for middle class families to own their own homes in New York.

the reason housing is so unaffordable in nyc is because the giuliani and bloomberg admnistrations have been sytematically doing away with anything that is supportive to the common man, intentionally or not, in favor of the rich. it's the overt sanitizing and commoditizing of new york. go ahead get rid of RS, you'll see how much MORE expensive NYC gets when the middle, working and lower classes become more and more of a minority without any demographic weight or say. obviously, people who are rich and dislike diversity don't see it this way.

With all this Condo inventory and talk of recessin limiting rents, it's surprising to hear talk of gouging and the need for city officials to further cap rents. If rents are too high, then that suggests a housing shortage. To an advocate of rent controls any asking rent is too high, and the expectation is that the fat cat land lord should maintain the residence with no regard for return on investment.

I'd like to see the out-cry if the city told owners of two family residences in Queens, Brookyn & Staten Island that they had to cut asking rent in half.

Riversider, you make a good point: the warehousing of unsold condo inventory should be banned. A reasonable time limit, say 6 months from scheduled completion date, should be imposed, after which the unit MUST be rented out.

landlords willingly enter the market knowing that RS is part of the game, and i would presume they are alert, conscious and breathing when they choose to get into specific RS/RC properties or situations.

"the reason housing is so unaffordable in nyc is because the giuliani and bloomberg admnistrations"

No, housing is unaffordable because of zoning laws which prevent condos from being built in the neighborhoods where people want to live.

bob_d, that's nice but

1. the neighborhoods that I think you're talking about are desirable precisely because they have old, low-rise buildings -- they're considered "charming". If a construction free-for-all were allowed, the area would very quickly become extremely undesirable, and become a slum in which nobody is willing to invest even for repairs.

2. you can't just throw up a really lot of high-rise in one concentrated area without providing a corresponding increase in transportation. We lack the political will to build that transportation -- and where that density is concerned, the subway is the only truly viable option. Things like Rapid Transit Bus are a nice patch job, but ultimately not that helpful.

"Libertarians also know that the less regulations that exist, the more they can get rich by screwing people."

Actually, big business LIKES regulation because they can pass the costs of regulation on to consumers, and the regulations create barriers to entry that keep out competitors. Regulation screws the regular guy a lot more than it screws big business.

Rent control causes shortages, diminution in the quality of the product, and queues.
This should be very clear. Cap the price of gasoline at $1 a gallon and you will have lines and shortages. Cap the price of cars and we'll have shortages there too and probably be driving Communist era Skodas. Vast majority of rent control/stabilized housing is pre-war. why because who builds a product when the government limits your return. Economists rarely agree on things, but on this there is overwhelming consensus. Price controls do not work.

You can owe the vibrancy of NYC in part to the relaxation of rent law.

Riversider just advocated economic cleansing. Lovely.

alanharT: "1. the neighborhoods that I think you're talking about are desirable precisely because they have old, low-rise buildings -- they're considered "charming""

No, the UES has ugly high rise charmless buildings, but it's still quite expensive. It's desirable because it's considered a "good neighborhood" which is a euphemism for not having too many minorities living there and no housing projects next door.

"If a construction free-for-all were allowed, the area would very quickly become extremely undesirable"

Would not. People want to live (1) In Manhattan ; (2) easy commute to work; (3) no poor people or projects int he neigborhood.

"you can't just throw up a really lot of high-rise in one concentrated area without providing a corresponding increase in transportation"

A good reason for building these on the west side rather than the east side. But high rises in the right place an actually LESSEN the burden on subways because people don't have to commute as far, or they might even be able to WALK to work if the buildings are put up within a mile of the midtown office buildings.

"We lack the political will to build that transportation"

It's more about lacking money. The 2nd ave subway is incredibly expensive to build.

"No, on behalf of somewhereelse I'd like to point out that it's because of the teachers' union"

actually, it the construction unions... who increase the cost of construction by about 30% with no added benefits, per a non-partisan analysis done last year and posted here.

I still love that you NEED THEIR PERMISSION to not have a job site where the people that need to work together all have different work schedules. You literally have to GET THAT APPROVED!!! (and they don't approve it a bunch of the time).

I happen to agree with you about the construction trades unions in NYC, but I like the old somewhereelse standard that it's ALWAYS the fault of the teachers' union.

Bob...in case you haven't noticed the most desirable part of the UES (west of 3rd) is overwhelming composed of pre-war buildings. Not exactly low rise but not 50 story towering behemoths. As somewhat less desirable, but largely UES--1st and 2nd Avenue, hate to break it to you but scattered among the post war white bricks and "pre-war" (fka tenement) are several NYCHA properties, just as there are in highly desirable Chelsea.

People want to live in Manhattan for easy commute and the cultural/culinary/fashion/nightlife etc etc etc activities only available here. (And a few of us were born here). Those who choose their residence based on racist principles are more likely to choose parts of Brooklyn or Staten Island.

So far as the 2nd Avenue subway goes...it was supposed to be built as the 3rd Avenue el was demolished in 1955. At that time there was no budget crisis, the city was thriving, perhaps not in a gilt edge "aughts" kind of way, but there was money for major municipal projects. Politics delayed it until the budget crisis hit in the 70s. Now we have a new budget crisis and transit service is already starting to remind me of the 70s/80s (at least on weekends) so I'm sure we can say goodbye to whatever small progress has been made on the 2nd avenue subway. I've been saying for years and I will continue to say until proven wrong that, having been born after the planned opening, I will never ride on the SAS or at least not without a senior fare card.

Yes, why bother with what I actually said when you can make up something else and respond to THAT. Sounds fun!

lizyank: "Bob...in case you haven't noticed the most desirable part of the UES (west of 3rd) is overwhelming composed of pre-war buildings"

It's most desirable because it's closest to Central Park.

If someone built a few 100 story residential buildings on 5th Ave, do you seriously think people wouldn't want to live there anymore?

It's ludicrous to say that people don't want to live near tall buildings when the fact is that the borough with more tall buildings than anywhere else in the world is also the most expensive. Just the opposite, people will pay a huge premium to live on an island full of tall buildings.

Agreed, the logic is bad. Correlation vs. causation.

Its also because the better buildings were built there initially, and those buildings were maintained and lasted. Third ave had such lower quality stuff, it got knocked down and towers were built. In the few places on 5th where this was doable, it was done as well.

Not to mention, some of the 5th ave and CPW buildings were pretty tall for their day.

"landlords willingly enter the market knowing that RS is part of the game, and i would presume they are alert, conscious and breathing when they choose to get into specific RS/RC properties or situations."

Is this your argument for why RS laws should stay put? If so, you need to find a new one. This assumption by you has no merit on if the laws are hurting more people than they are helping. Is that the best you can do?

Central Park North is pretty close to Central Park, too.

"Central Park North is pretty close to Central Park, too."

Housing projects and minorities live near there, bringing down the property values. But Central Park North is more valuable real estate than a 111th st.