Effect of new RS law on the RE market.

why does a household that makes 175k + need rent stabilization?

any idea when the last time these figures were adjusted?

I think 1993.

This should decrease the value of buildings with RS tenants, esp. multi-fam THs. I've seen a few lately where the RS tenancies were close to the 2k limit, so buying 'em out should not have cost more than 50k apiece. Raising the deregulation rent to 2k should have a dampening effect on values there.

Looks like 1997. http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/decontrol.html

It's great if you are a RS tenant or a developer. It is terrible if you are a market rate renter or even worse, an owner.

and marco, its not just who makes $200K (formerly $175K), its who both makes 200K and pays less than $2000/mo.

Thank god we just saved those whose ADJUSTED HHI is in the $25K range between $175 and $200 and whose rent is between $2000 and $2500. I bet all 16 of them are celebrating in the Hamptons!

10023: The 1993 law set the income cap at $225K. The 1997 amendments lowered it to $175K. The modest bump to $200K - after fourteen years, to a level that is still below the 1993 figure - is basically a win for the owners, and is unlikely to have much effect on high-income decontrol.

Raising the rent threshold from $2000 to $2500 could be much more significant, especially if the promised tightening of MCI rules actually occurs. $2500 is still only halfway to the $3K figure that Democrats floated in 2010, so it's not exactly a triumph for tenants.

They had never been adjusted.

In fact they didn't even exist until the law was re-written in '90s to include some deregulation conditions.

I don't get why an apartment needs to be over a certain price in order to test it for dereg? Why are particularly cheap apartments protected? Who is being protected here? Not seniors, they are exempt from dereg rules. Not current tenants who make less than the threshold since they wouldn't be dereg'd even if the rent went over the threshold.

So all you are protecting are non-senior high earners who live in cheap RS apartments. Why do these people need/deserve this protection?

My own theory is that a lot of city employees would eventually fall into this category. That and that a lot of "advocates" for tenants and the poor are not particularly clear thinkers when it comes to economic issues.

my bad on the "never adjusted". Corrected above by Westie.

My point about the whole thing making no sense still stands. As does MAV's point that over all not a lot of people affected. (So why should politicians care?) My theory that a lot of city employees are in this category is still my favorite. Their votes, particularly to Democrats, count a whole lot.

"Who is being protected here?" ... landlords who overpaid.

You are going to have to explain that. How does increasing the limits on RS protect a landlord?

And my question was regarding a system that helps only good earners who live in cheap apartments. Poor earners are protected by being below the threshold. Good earners in expensive apartments were not protected either.

The changes themselves are marginal. It is the original dereg rules that don't make sense, and tweaking them only moves things out a bit, which means it is helping only a small percentage of people. The question is, WHY?

Full disclosure. I am against RS. I lived in an RS apartment and railed against it at the same time. (If the system is going to exist I would be foolish not to take the deal. But I never decried faults of RS and also vote or argued for its perpetuation.)

I am now paying market rates in a mixed building. Ironically the people who seem the most ill at ease with the system are the RS tenants and not the market rate tenants paying much more for the same building. The RS tenants look at every improvement with suspicion. They can't seem to understand that they are benefiting from the LL wanting to make the building worth more so they can charge more.

They also seem to think there is something harassing about the LL trying to dereg their apartments. I never understood this either. I knew in my previous apartment that if I made enough there was a possibility the LL would want to dereg the apartment, but that if it didn't qualify I had a valid (and strong) defense. So I am lead to presume that those complaining actually do have something to hide.

Cuts both ways, AH. Weren't you arguing that any monetary benefit derived from a gov't policy/law can and may be abolished? Whoever screams the loudest and pays off the right people.

AV: I think he's referring to the pre-1993 laws which did not allow for any kind of deregulation (except for owner occupancy). So if LLs bought under that regime, any possibility of deregulation (no matter how unlikely) is to their benefit.

13 posts and we haven't heard Jason extol the glorious virtues and ethnic cleansing resulting from decontrol in Wyoming.

Don't tempt the trolls.

Agreed, though maybe we're lucky and you have to say his name three times like Beetlejuice.