A charming tale of rent control gone crazy

Rent control needs to be completely overhauled or done away with altogether. This kind of thing is an absolute joke. A-holes.

This guy is 80 years old. Isn't that why rent control was started, to protect old people on fixed incomes from being priced out of their family homes?

NYRENewbie, when did rent control start? I am sure the 80 year old was a lot younger when it started.

always thought rent control was viewed like welfare...

to TEMPORARILY help a person get on his/her feet, then make way for the next person who needs that apt/help.

i love some of the NYT comments though...

..many of the readers ironically praise this man, then scold the RE g-ds (whoever they be) about "high rents," partly exacerbated by... rent control

I said it before, and I will say it again: there is NO topic in Economics that unites more economists than rent control. You won't find any prominent economists - not even the most liberal like Reich or Krugmann, saying anything other than "its a totally inefficient system and should be abolished". The next sentence from a left or center economist or (I mean I almost quote him) even Milton Friedman - if you goal is to help poor people live in expensive areas, give them (expand) housing vouchers. You could even raise income taxes on the wealthy to pay for them, to make sure you are taking from the wealthy to help the poor.

NYC's system takes from landlords who may or may not be wealthy and gives to tenants who can be of any sort of income level. It makes no sense.

The owner paid $1,710,000 for the buildings in 1996.

Any guesses how much she'd have paid had the apartments been free-market?

I'd take it.

>
NWT
31 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
The owner paid $1,710,000 for the buildings in 1996.
Any guesses how much she'd have paid had the apartments been free-market?

Exactly

>jason10006
39 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
I said it before, and I will say it again: there is NO topic in Economics that unites more economists than rent control.

Economists aren't real people though, and their economic models assume people aren't involved in the real world.

rest assured one of his kids will be taking it over.

"This guy is 80 years old. Isn't that why rent control was started, to protect old people on fixed incomes from being priced out of their family homes?"

You are absolutely incorrect. Educate yourself on the topic and then come back.

help her. these boards are an exchange of info to help learn about RE.... O'yea, and to entertain.

If rent control here is "overhauled or done away with altogether", how does everyone here benefit?

What, no answers from the landlord-bait on here?

The theory is that rents that're now unregulated would go down. Those tenants don't have the votes in Albany, though, so regulation will just continue to be chipped away at.

The small and big unregulated landlords don't want it to go away, as they'd be screwed, and the regulated landlords prefer the evil they know.

"This guy is 80 years old. Isn't that why rent control was started, to protect old people on fixed incomes from being priced out of their family homes?"

First of all, who DOESN'T have a "fixed" income? Last time I checked, nearly everyone who draws a paycheck gets the same amount all the time. It's ... um ... FIXED.

Second, when you build your "family home" in a home that is not yours, there's never a guarantee you can live there in perpetuity. HELLO! You're R E N T I N G. I don't give a crap if you've been living there since 1953. Longevity does not translate into ownership. The dwelling is not yours -- it's owned by someone else who has extended a lease to you for your use in exchange for monetary remuneration. Leases expire. Landlords change their minds. Deal. If you really wanted a "family home" to call your own, you should have BOUGHT ONE.

"The small and big unregulated landlords don't want it to go away"

...does that include some of the recipients of these rent controlled apts who illegally rent their own pads while claiming to live in it?

Yes, though you do have to admire their entrepreneurial spirit. If they're pulling that off and their landlord is too lazy and slap-dash to detect the scam and boot them out, good for them.

Any word on the status of the RS/RC suit that the Supreme Court was reviewing? I think NYC had to respond by early January.

>The dwelling is not yours -- it's owned by someone else who has extended a lease to you for your use in exchange for monetary remuneration. Leases expire. Landlords change their minds. Deal.

This lease was extended prior to this current owner. This owner bought in knowing this. This lease doesn't expire. The landlord doesn't have the right to change its mind. Deal.

Rent control debate aside, the landlord sounds quite lovely to rent an apartment for so little money to a woman on the basis that she would be a 4th generation building resident. That's pretty old school greenwich village spirit!

Amen, Matt. Why does an 80-year-old need a four-bedroom apartment anyway? Especially at the expense of the property owner? That is simply outrageous. Anywhere else in the country elderly folks downsize when they no longer need or are able to live in their larger "family homes". That's life.

This guy is nothing more than a drain on the system, and a financial drain on the landlord, who is completely subsidizing his existence. Just shameful.

The original name was the War Emergency Tenant Protection Act. As in WW II.

While I'd much rather see rent control/stabilization abolished, as mentioned above a good first step would be to allow landlords to move people to smaller apts if they are underoccupied. There is no reason a "welfare" apartment for a single person should be larger than a studio.

bunch your panties as you like, but rent control is but a tiny pimple on the ass of the NYRE market---16,000 units--BFD--you all sound like a bunch of indignant "i saw her buy a bootle of chivas with food stamps" dbags

and RS, with recent changes favorable to LL's is pretty meaningless as well, though very nice for LL's who owned when the changes were implemented--windfall via bought politicians--American Style!!

You may disagree with the law but blaming this guy for taking advantage of it is like blaming Mitt Romney for not paying higher taxes. "Why does a 58 year old multimillionaire need $6M in tax savings anyway? What a drain on the system."

because he earned it

I don't blame the man. If I found out I had an uncle I never knew who wanted to will me a fantastic rent controlled place for less than I am paying I'd probably take it.

However the law is INSANE.

"Why does a 58 year old multimillionaire need $6M in tax savings anyway? What a drain on the system."

except he 'aint draining the system. He's "only" paying millions...

Suck it, Haters! Yes, these tenants are in quite the enviable position. Get over it. 16K RC apartments are not the reason your landlord is charging you $4600 for a 1-br.

As Ali pointed out in another thread, it's now ~40,000 rent-controlled apartments. So three drops in the bucket. From the NYT in 2010:

"As with many other things that money and gentrification have scrubbed from the city, the number of these apartments is shrinking. The roster of rent-controlled apartments, the ones with the most restrictions on rent, has shrunk to 40,000, according to the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal. When these units are emptied, they often become rent stabilized, and after a certain point the apartments can be liberated to the free market. According to the most recent figures available, the number of rent-stabilized units fell to 848,000 in 2008 from 900,000 in 2003. And outside of prime neighborhoods, the restricted rents are not such a great bargain, in many cases barely cheaper than what the apartments could fetch on the open market.

"The deteriorating low-priced apartments still exist partly because landlords have little financial incentive to make renovations or apply for rent increases. Stabilized rents increase by order of the local Rent Guidelines Board, typically around 3 percent a year, while controlled rents can go up only if the landlord files an application for an increase with the state, a laborious process. And the state will not allow a rent increase if an apartment has major housing code violations."

I saw something else that said stabilized amounted to one million or so. The general trend is down, though destabilizations are offset by landlords choosing to stabilize their apartments in return for tax breaks. I.e., they can make more money that way.

"I don't plan on dying, because I don't want to give up a rent controlled apartment."

Of course not-you'd lose out on the opportunity for the next step in the NYC parasitical sequence: Medicaid drain!

>And outside of prime neighborhoods, the restricted rents are not such a great bargain, in many cases barely cheaper than what the apartments could fetch on the open market.