Landlords screw new long term Manhattan renters?

There is SOME new rent control.

Taxes and service charges increase. Why should landlords be expected not to raise rents? Even if you buy you will find your cost of living going up and up. If you can't afford the rent, move.

By the way, rent control screws landlords like nothing else. Would YOU want to be stuck with a 70-yr-old hoarder tenant paying 800 bucks for a classic six that costs upwards of $3,000 a month to carry? Didn't think so.

There is NO new rent control in New York.

Jason was talking about East New York.

>Would YOU want to be stuck with a 70-yr-old hoarder tenant paying 800 bucks for a classic six that costs upwards of $3,000 a month to carry? Didn't think so.

The landlord purchased this building not understanding the law and the building's rent rolls?

huntersburg - the laws have changed significantly over the last fews years - a landlord may have understood the rules when he bought a building 10 years ago but he didn't expect property taxes to double or triple - didn't expect oil to go from $10 barrel to $100 barrel, didn't expect courts to take 12 months to evict non-paying tenants - all the while rent increase of 3% per year.

The rules say that rent increases should be enough to cover these increases - those were the rules when the landlord bought - but even the RGB admits that their rent increases aren't enough to cover increased costs.

Plus the RGB fails to even consider that plumbers rates go up, contractors rates go up, new lead paint regs, new window guard regs, new bed bug regs, new heat regs, new J51 rulings, new HPD, DOB regs etc etc add costs. These are real expenses that the RGB admits aren't even considered in their rent increase calculations (which again they admit don't even cover the increased costs from the costs they do consider).

Saying that landlords knew what they were getting themselves into is false - landlords expected the RGB, courts, City to enforce the laws.

>the laws have changed significantly over the last fews years - a landlord may have understood the rules when he bought a building 10 years ago but he didn't expect property taxes to double or triple

In 10 years, it was out of the realm of possibilities that property taxes could double?

- didn't expect oil to go from $10 barrel to $100 barrel,

Even though more than 10 years ago we had oil crises and high oil prices?

didn't expect courts to take 12 months to evict non-paying tenants

You are saying this is new??

- all the while rent increase of 3% per year.

So those that bought were like Facebook IPO investors. They thought they were guaranteed to make money no matter what? Just because they invested in real estate, or bought Facebook at the IPO, they should have automatically won?
Investing involves risk.

Sell the building if you can't handle the cash flows.

>The rules say that rent increases should be enough to cover these increases - those were the rules when the landlord bought - but even the RGB admits that their rent increases aren't enough to cover increased costs.

The rules were put in place to protect the tenants. Not the landlords.

>Saying that landlords knew what they were getting themselves into is false - landlords expected the RGB, courts, City to enforce the laws.

But you haven't cited any laws that have not been enforced.

"By the way, rent control screws landlords like nothing else. Would YOU want to be stuck with a 70-yr-old hoarder tenant paying 800 bucks for a classic six that costs upwards of $3,000 a month to carry? Didn't think so."

this is crap--LL's and buyers of occupied apts arent morons--buildings which house many legacy rent-controlled and stabilized tenants, and coop apt's occupied by legacy rent-controlled/stabilized tenants are priced accordingly whern sold--the same discipline you apply to renters can be applied to LL's--if you can't afford the deal, dont do it--if you do a dumb deal, tough shlt--sell at a loss

Market forces determine rents, generally.LL's will charge the max they can get away with, and more power to them. And tenants will shop for the best deal they can find. And if tenants are un or underemployed, they share space or move home to daddy. Supply deamnd.

Rent controlled/stabilized are a weensy portion of the marklet discussed here. Such a tired right wing rant.

yikes basically says what I say, except he added his anti Republican political bias, and he added some creepy comment about "daddy".

Landlord's who buy with knowledge of rent control suffer all things that follow because of rent control.

Landlord's who purchase apartments/property in general, suffer for all things that follow with the costs of apartments (oil, maintenance to building, inability to collect rent etc.).

These are risks in buying, change in circumstances need to be incorporated in purchasing. So 10 years ago when you purchased an apartment with a rent control tenant, you need to be even MORE CAREFUL in speculating future costs because it generates less income/runs at a higher loss.

I am not a fan of rent control/rent stabilization but it is not because of the poor landlords.

I wasn't asking a rent control question, its about surviving market rate long term.

Rent controls and zoning laws are what's preventing Manhattan from being purely supply-demand. It inflates housing prices and rents for the rest of us not lucky enough to happen upon paying $300 a month for a $2000 apt. All so that a few old geezers and welfare types (who don't work anyway and shouldn't care about living in Manhattan and close to their jobs) can stay in their apartments.

Got news for all the libbie artards out there - unless you're getting rent control, your defense of it is what's pricing you out of Manhattan. Supply of apts is restricted in Manhattan, therefore the price point across all levels is higher because demand remains the same. Take some basic econ classes - it'll be a welcome change from "gender-studies. "

long term you need to look at the ratios of rent vs buy. currently, even with increasing rents, buying is just stupid. ofcourse, if you are buying a new condo with a 10/15/20 yr tax abatement, you can just ignore what you will be paying later and make the ratio look much better.

hunterburg uttered:

Even though more than 10 years ago we had oil crises and high oil prices?

You are saying this is new??

So those that bought were like Facebook IPO investors. They thought they were guaranteed to make money no matter what? Just because they invested in real estate, or bought Facebook at the IPO, they should have automatically won?
Investing involves risk.

F* making money. How about barely breaking even? Do you realize what happens when that 90 year old codger dies? They quickly claim that their 30 year old grandkids were living there and, thanks to rent control laws, it is near impossible to evict them. That rent control apartment stays rent controlled from generation to generation. I've seen it happen before - I know people who manage properties. Is that fair? To have this protected class of people who are living at a much lower cost than anyone else? And what makes them special? You libbie twerps seem to love protecting the poor and downtrodden. Except these people ain't poor. Only difference between them and someone else is that they lucked upon a relative with a rent control apt.

Well, live long enough and you'll be called just about everything. Me a liberal? But you want the government to intervene to change existing laws and your argument is that the economic bet you made, with full advance knowledge of the rules, didn't work our for you.

!!! uh what about the fact that these owners also lucked out on a time period where prices in manhattan went through the roof? so basically you are ok with the rewards but don't want to deal with the risks?

You know who I really hate? That guy who bought an apartment down the hall from me in 1990. It's so unfair that his mortgage allows him to live at a much lower cost than me, with my bubble-priced multiple mortgages from 2006.

And don't even get me started on children "inheriting" the coop units from their deceased parents in landlease buildings ... they don't have to pay prevailing rates on landleases, 2012 version, unlike someone who moves into a newly-landleased building. Bastards!

Don't try to get between me and my Paul Ryan-guaranteed right to pettiness and resentment towards the non-rich!!!

Anyway, hoodia, to answer your question: avoiding rent increases, both capricious and methodical, is one of the key reasons that some people prefer to buy rather than rent. Of course, operating and other costs will go up for owner-occupants as well, and they have little choice but to suck it up. Or take on the huge transaction costs of selling. For a renter who is bothered only to a relatively small degree by frequent moving, renting is preferable.

You can negotiate a longer lease with a set period followed by renewal options (at renter's choice) and pre-determined annual increases.

"Of course, operating and other costs will go up for owner-occupants as well, and they have little choice but to suck it up."

Two points on this:

1. For most owners, these costs would be added onto their monthly maintenance, which is a significantly smaller portion of their overall monthly housing nut (assuming they wisely chose a fixed-rate mortgage).

2. Those who determine the increases on monthly maintenance are fellow shareholders, who have a built-in incentive (no one wants to pay any more than they have to) to keep any increases as low as possible. Not so with landlords, who have a built-in incentive to jack up the rent as high as the market will bear.

op's original questions seems to imply that LL's "screw" tenants from time to time--reality is that LL's screw tenants at all times to the max potential they can get away with--if they screw too hard, they have costly vacancies, turnover, etc.

LL's approach ther dilemma in different ways, but they all seek to effect best value over time for themselves--as they are supposed to--my LL charges slightly under market--he has little turnover, and vacancies move much more quickly than in comp buildings--some LL's screw the tenant at every possible juncture--they have more turnover, and a harder time renting, but have calc'ed that, for them, their approach will provide best revenues.

If I dont like my LL, his apt or what she charges, a few grand and some pack/unpack hassle, and I am outta there.

Cost increases for owners (non-renters) are not easily escapable, and are unpredictable. If Matt's roof collapses, he's paying up big. And selling wont fix his problem, assuming that he could do so within any reasonable amt of time. Price would reflect upcoming assessment.

The laws require the RGB to give increases that are large enough to cover increased costs on stabilized apartments. If oil goes to $1MM dollars per barrel it shouldn't matter to the owner as those costs BY LAW are required to be passed on to the tenants.
The RGB publicly admits that their increases aren't sufficient to cover the increased operating costs. Thus, the argument that landlords "knew what they were getting into" is bogus.
That's the way stabilization is, by law, supposed to work. You keep your revenues down, and in return we'll analyze your expenses and let you raise your rents enough to cover the increases in expenses.

alanhart - I fail to see why you believe renters should be afforded the same rewards as owners. Comparing inheritable rights and the benefits of longterm ownership between tenants and owners seems unusual.
Where in the US are tenants afforded the rights of owners in such a way as to provide a better system for all?

What do you mean where in the US? New York has its own laws, its own government, its own legislature.

We also have our own judiciary, but you can feel free to take it to the Supreme Court.

The landlord's advocacy organization has for decades refused to allow open books of their businesses, preferring instead to hide behind a false image of poor little mom-and-pop investors, as if they owned a few apartments over their candy shoppe. So broad claims of hardship really need to be tossed aside.

With the widespread decontrol of apartments since 1997, and rapidly escalating rents in almost all parts of the City since then, landlords have plenty of ability to suck up the increased costs overall. It's not appropriate to focus on the increased cost for a particular rent-regulated apartment, but the business operation overall.

Most cities have laws dictating how landlords run their businesses so that they provide a certain level of habitability.

New York, appropriately also addresses (or did so until 1997) the local housing shortage that has prevailed since the 1920s, and which predates rent regulations by a considerable number of years. Generally, large cities worldwide have housing shortages (relative to local income). Perhaps there's a certain population size that is the maximum possible for an affordable situation. Widespread rapid transit is in my opinion the best solution, but the political will in NY is inadequate for that. And thus (along with crime-syndicate-permeated out-of-control labor trades unions in NYC), the growing housing shortage. Rent regulations and zoning have much less to do with it.

Economists, in evaluating rent regulations, invariably assume the laws apply to all new rental construction, which has never been the case in NYC on a compulsory basis. And if it had, new construction would have proceeded unimpeded, but as coops/condos instead. The economists use that methodology, and (along with their citers) shout loudest about the results, are simply having ideological temper tantrums.

I also summarily reject the notion that there's a widespread occurrence of inheriting rent-regulated apartments intergenerationally, at least in middle-class and higher neighborhoods. It requires both parties living in the apartment together for two years, which isn't something most adults will tolerate.

Why is the OP angry at THE LANDLORD and not THE MARKET. People LOVE to "blame" a PERSON when their neighborhood improves. And who is "We" were having this debate?

Also, Alanhart, The LL lobbying thaty you see from REBNY represents BIG TIME developers, NOT the interests of small time owners with small buildings. They talk about J-51s and large scale development items, while allowing the threshold to be raised to $2500, a market rent which most of my walkup RS apartments would NEVER reach. There are separate organizations for smaller LLs which do not get the press here (or elsewhere). The more you talk, the more its clear to someone in the business that you are not.

I never said I was in the business, and I doubt very much whether very many people think I am. Profuse apologies if there's confusion on that point. Nonetheless, what comes out at RGB increase time is the mom & pop stuff and their tears are put on display to justify whatever the Rent Stabilization Association (not REBNY) is pushing.

RGB, it should be noted, is dominated by the Governor's political appointees, so whoever controls the State -- for a long time, Pataki -- completely dictates the orientation of that body's decisions. It should never be seen as fair or neutral; it can't be.

I understand your frustration that the landlord groups are primarily driven by big-time landlords.

Also, it's foolish to assume (or state) that your walkups will never reach $2500. Unless you mean strictly for luxury decontrol.

Do the small LL organizations advocate for open books so the world can see the troubles that increasing costs and lagging rents create?

MAV,since youre in the business and all, you should really know well that, when you buy a building in which there are controlled/stabilized apts, you will be at the mercy of government appointed bureacrats, and their whims. This is a risk (calculated, i assume)that you took when you bought your building.

To whine now makes me think that, tho in the business, you are not a good businessman.

hey..taxi medallions have been one of the best investments out there, for the last 50 years...wish i bought a few, had friends who did..they've done quite well..i missed out, didnt have it in me to invest in an asset so vulnerable to the whims od whatever political regime was in power at any given time. you should know well that buying regulated (lesser income targetted)rental housing stock has similar risks. next time step up to more valuable properties, so that you arent subject to regulation. of course that stuff's priced accordingly.

I dont know what you have ever said, i dont spend my time memorizing SE posts. You just read to be full of half truths that are stung together in an inaccurate way. As someone with experience dealing with hundreds of units, I have the perspective of reality.

Its not foolish to assume small walkup studios will never reach $2500, (or at least until it is raised again). The numbers do not make sense (a 400 SF studio is going to rent for $75 a foot?!?!).

It is also impossible for the government to keep track of who is occupying RS apartments, and there is not and has never been any "exit plan" for RS occupants. People's needs change over decades, yet alone generations. If there was ANY kind of verification of legal use of RS apartments, both sides (who play by the rules) would benefit.

The reason to not "open books" is because it is irrelevant. If there are more or less LL expenses does it make RS any more or less fair? No, it is still an outdated system which benefits an unfair group (who are not means tested), at the cost of the others.

Its not only what RS takes away form us as LLs, but the taxable income that the city looses and then has to make up for in other places.

RSA is about the same as REBNY as far as I am concerned. Even smaller....

The taxi medallion situation is truly disgusting -- never intended to be a commodity, they've spawned a cottage industry of lobbyists who protest loudly whenever the City decides to increase the number of taxis that can pick up streetfares ... despite the clear need for more cabs. They also turn the cabdrivers into something akin to sharecroppers, working mandated 12-hour very stressful shifts and barely able to draw a living from their work.

I do know that when I buy a building I am subject to laws, yes.

I also know I live in a country where people have the power to change laws which actually do the opposite from what they have intended to due 60 years ago, when enacted as an "emergency" (Ironic, huh). Now the city holds onto these units while restricting growth. OK.....

The time will come soon enough, especially as the discrepancies between market rate and RS grow further and further apart, that the system will break. You can already see it now, and with market rents going up 8% a year and RS going up 2%, the discrepancy grows deeper....

Yikes,

To whine now makes me think that, tho in the business, you are not a good businessman.

Your statement makes no damned sense whatsover. It would be the equivalent of a US citizen "whining" that the gov't raised taxes. Yikes: "Hey pal, you SIGNED UP to be a US Citizen. So quit moaning when they raise your taxes. "

No, it would be exactly like someone buying a nuclear power plant and whining that "all that red tape" is un-American.

New York's severe housing shortage began well before WWII. That's just when rent control was implemented.

We should all be thankful that rent control and rent stabilization were so firmly entrenched in NYC, during the decades when government policy caused a massive outflow from cities to suburbs, from east to west, and from north to south. Despite many rough spots, the City was intact enough (and had retained a broad swath of the middle-class) to rebuild its wealth and attract more and more rich people from around the world. Not so all the large northern cities that didn't have rent regulations beyond the brief federally-imposed period ... Detroit, Baltimore, Philly, etc. And they all have exceptionally wealthy suburbs to this day, so you certainly can't blame the collapse of heavy industry in those metros.

The number of rent-regulated tenants in NYC has been shrinking rapidly since the 1997 changes to the law. They will soon have inadequate political power. They are already too few in number in most cases to be able to split the legal costs to challenge bogus MCI increases. Alternatively, though, if New York's housing affordability gets worse, there will be a renewed demand for tight rent regulations, and a new sweep of market-rate units into regulation. The discrepancy in market/regulated rent increases will have nothing to do with it.

"Its not foolish to assume small walkup studios will never reach $2500, (or at least until it is raised again). The numbers do not make sense (a 400 SF studio is going to rent for $75 a foot?!?!). "

Hi Mav, in response to your post above, I'm a rent-stabilized tenant, and I pay $96 per square foot. I pay $1,600 for a 200 sq foot studio. The numbers do make sense, FYI, which is why studios in certain neighborhoods (mine included) are for rent above $2,500 per month, and well above $75 per foot. The same studio across the hall is now on the market at $2,600 per month ($156 per sq. foot), and I would expect my LL to find someone to occupy it at $2,300.

no--you bought a low rent building. it's regulated. you bought hoping regulation or changes to regulation would benefit you. if you miscalculated, tough luck. and youre an insider with experience with hundreds of units, so you should know well of the fickle state of rent reg for low rent housing units

it as though you bought a corn farm, and now whine because subsidies you assumed would be perpetual, ended (finally)

or you bought a cab medallion and bloomberg installed congestion pricing in a way that focked your business--tough luck

I make poor judgements and goodjudgments, easily understood by p and l, in my busineess all day long--my problem--no whining

dnazinit, in most of my buildings $75 psf is not ever going to happen. You may pay that wherever you are, but in my buildings the numbers do not make sense. These are Manhattan buildings Houston to 96th st, but not prime areas/streets for the most part.

Yikes, Yikes, You have this angry tone. I did not ever buy hoping anything would end. For most of my life, I accepted rent regulations and did not ever think they would end. In the last few years though, as the gap has widened SO MUCH and I have seen so much abuse of stabilized apartments, some of which have had further consequences such as bedbugs because of illegal sublets.

"tough luck" ..... lol

and your corn analogy could not be more wrong. It has some kind of government subsidy.

Alan, I hate to say it but I disagree with you on intergenerational inheritance of rent regulated apartments (which I totally oppose except for cases of uninterrupted residence). I see two very likely scenarios for it happening:

1. Grandma needs care and can't live by herself anymore and options are nursing home, home health care or grandchild. The first is not acceptable to many people if at all possible and the second is often unreliable. Grandchild assumes care of Grandma (perhaps with home care during the day), gets free rent and if Grandma can hold on for two years, Grandchild gets apartment. Grandma can also hang on for eight years but, them's the breaks. At least this is a legitimate scenario.

2. (This will not work in a small building but certainly in anything above 40 units...) Grandchild puts all his/her banking, taxes, drivers license, and voter registration at Grandma's address. Gets snail mail delivered there regularly. Shows up twice a week or so to be seen around the building. Gives the super a very generous Christmas tip (and the rest of the staff if there is one) and delivers it personally. Starts paying the rent, Con Edison, phone (Grandma most certainly has a landline) and cable from his/her account. Install wireless internet like any person under 70 would do if they were moving into an apartment. Leave some clothes and "young person things" there. Then when Grandma dies, who can say you haven't been living there for two years? Yes, its fraud but I bet more than one person has done it successfully.

Unfortunately, the lure of the rent stabilized apartment can, I bet often does, overcome the aversion of adults to living with parents, grandparents etc. (And of parents, grandparents to having them). In my own case it was the desire to live somewhere that had been updated after 1950 or so rather than reluctance to live with my Mom that drove my saving "no" to the opportunity (besides I don't believe in the concept of inheriting rent control so I'd be a hypocrite if I did it).

"The landlord's advocacy organization has for decades refused to allow open books of their businesses"
I will no longer read your posts and now understand why you are hidden. Landlords report their income/expenses numbers for every building they own, EVERY YEAR, to the City government. This is not a politically rally where you can throw out garbage unquestioned.
The City knows exactly how much money I'm losing every year.

The protections of rent stabilized tenants have become too great - so great in fact that it will be the end of the system.

I have a 3 bedroom tenant who pays $47/month. She lives alone. Her neighbors right above her pay $2,000 month for the same apartment. 3 kids who work in restaurants. Is this reasonable? How long do you think these kids are going to put up this? Their rent will go up $200 this month - do the math - their rent increase is 4 times their neighbor's entire rent.

I realize this is an extreme example but how wide does the gap need to get between stabilized rents and market rents before enough market rate renters say enough is enough. Stabilized tenants are 1/3 rd of the City's populous. They can't keep the power forever UNLESS they allow larger annual rent increases to keep the gap from widening too much. But that won't happen. The tenant's greed will ultimately implode the system.

MAV I am not MAD at anyone, neither the landlord or the market, whatever that means.

We (meaning me and my fiance) are just interested how people work this out long term. When I posted, I tried to remove rent control from the equation because that's not realistic for us for a lot of reasons including availability not to mention income. So how do modern families deal with renting in today's New York for the long term? Especially with kids, you don't want to move.

you've raised an interesting question that no one here has really dealt with except alanhart. absent any new form of rent control (which is not ever going to happen), nyc especially manhattan is doomed. best case....an island of rich people. in reality, how could that possibly work? there is no solution to the problem you pose (long term family renting) other than rent control or hoping.

NYC is doomed. The end of the world. All move to columbia county.

who said its the end of the world?

if nyc is doomed, most of the world won't care except for the parts that would be laughing.

Oh, right, NYC isn't the center of the world. There are such great alternatives out there. Why not start a discussion on alternatives to NYC?

who said it was the end of the world?

I would say the majority of the people in NY rent. I think a lot depends on what their rent is in relationship to their income. You can live further out in Queens or Brooklyn where the rent is not that high in comparison to living in Manhattan. Whether its rent, co op maintenance or condo fees, everything goes up. That's a given. If your rent is low to start, even with increases in rent and salary, you will be able to live comfortably. Yes, maybe you would prefer to live in Manhattan instead of Fresh Meadow but the rent will be substantially lower for the same space.

You find the place you want to live with after kids, pay what you can afford and still have plenty of money left and the rent increases won't kill you. You also won't have o move. Maybe it's not your dream place but you will live a comfortable life and have money to send the kids to college.

Jazzman, help me understand this comment: "Landlords report their income/expenses numbers for every building they own, EVERY YEAR, to the City government." ... what level of detail is provided to the City (or more likely the State)? Does it get down to the granularity that "open books" implies? If so, when did that begin?

There's a real estate investment tool -- http://visulate.net/investment -- that I like to post for anyone who has a question about whether something's a good investment. The same site has a similar tool, with a slightly different focus. It explains conceptually and with sample numbers what a "good" cap rate is.

Then it says "cap rates in New York City are lower than cap rates in Orlando because land is scarce in NYC" ... without further explanation. This is preposterous. Why would investors be willing to accept a low rate of return for extremely pricey real estate in a place where all costs of maintenance, repair and renovation are sky-high? The answer is that, after buying, they're not!

And I suspect the cap rates are also unnaturally low in major cities without rent regulations (London, DC, Moscow). Sensible decision-making just gets rationalized away with an "onward & upward" notion of profiting from asset appreciation ... it's bizarre.

I'm with Yikes/Wbuttocks (on this issue only). Regardless of the laws or regs 10 years ago, it was abundantly clear that the assets in question were subject to NYS government laws, regs, politics, whims, insider-dealings, cronyism, etc.

A Chicago businessman I know mentioned that he bought a small rent controlled building in NYC, and was frustrated about a tenant, and the tenant's child. Said she was using all sorts of illegal and unethical activities. But he said that the judge wouldn't touch it beyond remediating some of the most egregious temporary activities. He told me that in Chicago they wouldn't let that happen because the Aldermen look out for their neighborhoods. Well, we don't have any Aldermen here. And he knew that in advance. He complains, but he also didn't put all of his eggs in this one basket or certainly into real estate.

Hoodia, you have to be willing to move every three years or so to enjoy market rate rental. Also, you can not be very particular about the type of apt you want including location assuming you are are looking for a nice 1 or 2 bedroom. For buying, you have to have a holding horizon of 7 to 10 years to cover the transaction costs besides having 40 percent in cash. 25-30 percent down and the rest in reserves. You alternative rate of return can not be more that 10 percent for you to buy unless you are expecting real estate to go up by more than 3 percent per year.
What was your final increase?

The reason that our landlord cannot screw you is that the landlords' e-mail system seems to have broken down. When your landlord sends you a massive rent increase, there will be other landlords who don't get the message that you must be screwed and they mistakenly offer their apartments for what you now consider reasonable rents and you decide to move. This imposes costs on your landlord in form of repainting, etc. costs and lost rental income between your tenancy and whoever comes next. Your landlord frets over this and decides to limit the rent increase he tries to get from you.

Which is another way to say that the sinister forces of competition thwart the GRAND CONSPIRACY you seem to fear.

Supply

Alanhart - By accident I rent your post - trying to read hunters burg's - I find it hard to believe you aren't aware of RPIEs but will give you the benefit of the doubt.
RPIEs have been around as long as I know - they are more granular than they should be - and yes of course they completely eliminate any argument about landlords not opening their books - a complete lie repeated constantly by the pro tenant lobby. Each year landlords file these and if they don't their property taxes go to a rate equal to the highest rate in the neighborhood - there is no mistake that the government knows exactly how much money I'm losing each year - http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/pdf/rpie/2011_rpie_inst_wkst.pdf

I am for the slow elimination of stabilization - stabilization is COMPLETELY unfair to my 20 something tenants. It makes no sense that anyone has a rent below $700. It makes no sense that anyone who makes a million a year can keep a stabilized place. It makes no sense that you can pass apartments from generation to generation. I makes no sense that you can live in Florida half the year and keep a stabilized apartment vacant those 6 months. It makes no sense that it takes 12 months to evict a nonpaying tenant.

These rules force 20 somethings to pay way more than older people - and older people are, BY FAR, richer than younger people - so our housing policy says - poor generations you pay out the nose - rich generations you pay way below market - it's a terrible system - free markets aren't perfect but they certainly are better than this current system. A slow, gradual elimination of the system is the best policy - let's say - eliminate it over 25 years by raising rents by $100 year every year until nearly all units are at market rate and then in year 25 eliminate stabilization outright - some of my market rate tenants saw their rents go from $2,500 to $3,000 this year - so no i really wouldn't feel bad for a person whose rent went from $400 to $700 and then to $800 and then to $900 and neither should you.

Without more reasonable rent increases on the stabilized tenants, market rate renters will revolt and the entire system blows up. It's not debatable. 20 somethings will only put up with so much and they will only stay ignorant to the process for so long. Wait until the hipsters in Williamsburg find out their rich neighbor, who is also their boss at work, has a rent that is 25% of what the hipster pays. The story would go viral on Facebook and then the entire system is in big trouble. I see this as a real threat to the system. The hipster would tolerate a 20% discount - maybe even a 40% discount - but a 75% discount???

MAV: "The time will come soon enough, especially as the discrepancies between market rate and RS grow further and further apart, that the system will break. You can already see it now, and with market rents going up 8% a year and RS going up 2%, the discrepancy grows deeper...."

That is a pleasant fantasy. Let's say the average Manhattan apt rents for $3500 these days. A decade of 8% would mean that the rent was $1600 a decade and will be $7600 in a decade. Do either of those seem realistic to you?

Not fantasy at all, Ive got some $3500 apts in the west village which were $2000 a decade ago... Ill be here (in NYC RE, maybe not on SE) in 10 years and will bump this post

You have missed the point though.. The gap is wide and widening....

Jazzman: for the rent to be $47 in 2012, doesn't that mean that the LL didn't get ANY increases over the last 50 years? That doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, that does not at all jive with my experience, even in the West Village. Nor any of the actual data. Miller Samuel has median rent at $3125 curently. In 2002 (a cyclical low), it was $2450. That's a 2.5% annual increase. If you compare to the cyclical high -- 2000 or 2001 at $2850 -- it's been a 1% annual increase.

By contrast, the RGB has averaged 3.25% over the past decade on 1-year leases. With 2-year leases, it has averaged 3%.

You've missed the point. You claimed RGB to does 2% when in fact they did 3-3.25%. You claimed the market is 8% when in fact the data has it at 2.5%. Hell, even your incredulous claim is only 5.7%.

MAV, here's a thought. Rather than bitching about RS here, just sell anything you've got and buy market rate units. Then jack the rent 8% every year. Good luck getting $7600 in a decade for that generic 1BR: there will be swarms of $400K earners looking to minimally qualify for that small slice of Manhattan.

I am not "bitching." I thought I was just having a conversation with people with opposing viewpoints. If you cannot do that in a civil manner, you should not be on a message board expressing your opinions.

I dont buy units, I buy buildings, like any smart person in RE. I dont "jack" the rate up, I charge at or below market rate. There is a gap and as market rent goes up more than RS, it widens. THIS YEAR the RGB raised 1 year renewals 2% when the market went up 7.9% in one year.

I do not need MS data, I have my own actual data. I am telling you about a real life example to something someone said was fantasy.

I do not expect to get $7600 for a 1 bedroom, never said I did. If I will get market rate and there will be people lined up to pay it.

"Jazzman: for the rent to be $47 in 2012, doesn't that mean that the LL didn't get ANY increases over the last 50 years? That doesn't make any sense."
It's rent controlled - plenty of apartments in the City are similar - in Manhattan proper it's uncommon to have such low rents but in places in the outer boros and Northern Manhattan they are out there. It's uncommon in Manhattan proper because the initial rent was often $200/month or more.
If i remove all of the old violations and file all of the paperwork then i can get a 7.5% rent increase - but why bother on a $47/rent? Landlords have been screaming forever that 7.5% increases don't make sense - there must also be a minimum increase - say $75/month. I'd file the paperwork for $75/month - not for a $4 increase. Are we to feel sorry for someone whose rent went from $47/month to $$123/month to $197/month??? Also as I stated before - there is no reason for ANYONE to have a rent below $700. Below market is fine, but $400ish is unfair to everyone (well everyone but that one tenant).

inonada -i don't understand why you think it's unreasonable for a landlord in a heavily regulated industry to try to point out what he sees as inefficiencies/inconsistencies/inequities in the system. Do you really think it's best for him to remain silent or change his carrier (aka sell his buildings)?
I find it completely reasonable to try and persuade people that there are needed changes in the system. It's a terrible system. We need not eliminate it overnight, but we should eliminate it over time.
Ask my 20 something tenants how the system is working for them. It's going to be hard to convince a 25 year old waiter who spends $600/month on a shared bedroom in a crowded apartment that the system works when he knows his neighbor lives alone in $600/month apartment and he knows that his neighbor is a lawyer making $500K/year.

Inoanda is saying I should go run away rather than try and fix a problem I see being far bigger than my singular experience. A problem which leaves a hole of millions, if not billions of dollars which our city then must fill in other ways, while a select group of people enjoy the benefits.

No thank you, I will devote time, money and other resources to fix this problem which plagues our city.

I understand it might mean some people can not afford to live in places anymore. Or maybe in not as big places, or they might have to walk up rather than live in a high rise, or they might have to be closer to 1st ave then then subway, or... they might have to....move to the .....outer boroughs,.....which, btw, are still NYC. I am fine with RS being in OBs, but for Manhattan, its a major problem.

Jazzman if the neighbor is making $500k/yr, doesn't s/he automatically lose rent stabilization? At least at one time their was a ceiling on what someone could make (I think it was $175K for an individual) and retain their stabilized status.

So Jazzman's complaint is that in this RC apartment, the LL decided not to remove violations and not to do any major capital improvements (i.e., maintenance) over the course of half a century.

In other words, the LL has deliberately flouted the law, presumably hoping to create conditions so bad that the tenant will leave, and, under the vacancy decontrol rules, the apartment will go off rent regulation entirely.

The RC statute guarantees LLs a reasonable return on capital (if they obey the housing code) and a (quite generous) return on capital improvements. Capital improvements are defined to include normal replacement of obsolete elements of the building. Over 50 years, the entire building should have been rebuilt; this LL apparently opted not to do anything.

Any competent LL obeying the law would have been able to get 7.5% or more increases every year since the mid-1970s, which would have kept the rent at roughly market levels over time.

In short, the LLs mismanagement has led to a very low rent for an apartment that is in illegally substandard condition. And now the LL is complaining that it should be freed of the consequences of its behavior.

That is unfair, to be sure, but not to the LL! Why should this LL be rewarded rather than, for example, imprisoned?

As for your $47 apartment, if its rent controlled it must have been occupied by the same tenant since prior to 1971, making it highly likely that tenant is of advanced age. (I do know one person who moved into her place as a blushing young bride in 1968 and is still there as a very vibrant rent controlled grandma in her late 60s). The majority of the few rent controlled units left are occupied by the "old old", meaning that program will be eliminated by natural course of time in the not to distant future. Chances are your $47 tenant has lived her entire adult life in that apartment, raised her children there, created deep ties to and with the community (which your $2000 waiters never will do), and probably buried her husband and other family and friends there. She deserves to be able to stay there as long as she as able at a rent that is affordable on what is probably a limited income. The $2000 will make more money and be able to afford more luxe living someday, probably soon. This woman will not.

There were about 38,000 rent-controlled tenants in 2011.

In 2010, their median income was $29,000 and their median rent was $800.

More stats at http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/downloads/pdf/HPD-2011-HVS-Selected-Findings-Tables.pdf

MAV -- sorry for saying "bitching". Replace it with "complaining". Ditto for "hell" => "heck".

Improving / eliminating / etc. RS seems like a fine idea, but let's talk in terms of facts and reality rather than hyperbole.

A key aspect of rent stabilization is STABILIZATION. Post-2001 and post-2009, market rents dropped 10+%. During these years, the RGB still increased rents 2-3%.

"You can already see it now, and with market rents going up 8% a year and RS going up 2%, the discrepancy grows deeper" => Pointing to a single year of data, comparing an outlier unstable quantity against its intentionally-stabilized quantity, and extrapolating as a determinant for public policy seems disingenuous. Especially when the long-term average stabilized value matches the long-term average unstabilized value.

"Jazzman if the neighbor is making $500k/yr, doesn't s/he automatically lose rent stabilization? At least at one time their was a ceiling on what someone could make (I think it was $175K for an individual) and retain their stabilized status."

This is another lie from the pro-tenant lobby - they all say "there are no millionaires with stabilized apartments" - but that couldn't be further from the truth - there are tens of thousands of people who make north of $200k and have stabilized rents.
The issue - it is a two pronged test - you must make $200K (recently raised) per year for 2 consecutive years AND your legal rent must be over $2,500.

Accordingly anyone with a rent below $2,500 isn't even subject to the income test. Then once/if rich people get above the $2,500 rent level they can do plenty of things to avoid destabilization - including get their employer to pay their 2012 and 2013 bonuses in 2013 making that year's income high and then making sure 2013's income falls below $200K. Or for many, they are retired. They could have $5MM of assets but they make sure that the income from those assets stays below $200K. If it get's close they put it in a trust etc etc.

So, obviously, the high income rules have VERY LITTLE teeth to them.

And it's noteworthy that there are no "net worth" tests. A person who owns $10MM of stock but never sells it would yield no "income" from the stock (assuming no dividends are issued) and thus would still be allowed to keep their stabilized apartment. In other words, there are plenty of ways to grow your wealth without producing "income" and if you have a classic 6 on CPW that you pay $1000/month for then you find those types of investments.

finance guy -

If a landlord doesn't keep up an apartment then the courts will let the tenant live for free until the conditions are corrected. So even at $47/month it makes sense for me financially (not to mention ethically) to repair everything in the tenant's apartment. The fridge breaks - what to do? But a used fridge for $200 or forgo collecting $47/month for decades? Also - most repairs to a building aren't eligible for an MCI rent increase. The building I have with a $47/month rent has 9 total HPD violations (all are old) and zero DOB, DOH, DEC etc etc violations. To insuinate I'm sort of slumlord is asinine.

Next - you mention the "guaranteed" return on capital. I'll let you handle this lie perpetuated by the pro-tenant lobby - please explain to the readers 1. How the program works, 2. How many landlords per year apply for it. 3. How many landlords per year are approved for it. and finally 4. Explain how any landlord declares bankruptcy/goes into foreclosure if profits are "guaranteed" as you claim.

Regarding Rent Controlled tenants - first - no generation in the history of the US have been wealthier than our current senior citizens. By far, they are the richest generation in our country. So to say that old people deserve a break just because they are old is ridiculous.

Next, the median income is low because most in RC apartments are retired. Just because their "income" is $30K year doesn't mean they don't have $1MM of investments in the bank.

Finally, the "price grandma out of her apartment" is another lie by the pro-tenant crowd. Every senior in the City who makes less than the poverty line pays ZERO rent increases each year (same goes for disabled people). Again - they pay ZERO rent increases. We, the tax payers, pay them for them. I have plenty of tenants who may $500ish/month in rent and the taxpayers pay $300/month for them. Next year the tenant's share of the rent will be the same and the increase will be picked up by the tax payer. So enough of the price grandma out nonsense - taxpayers pick up the tab not grandma.

This thread shows how little people know, even people who consider themselves knowledgeable in RE. I see this time and time again, people DO NOT KNOW about the 2 pronged test. People do not realize how easy it is to hide income. People have NO IDEA that there is no testing to verify the legal use of RS apartments ANYTIME EVER after people move in. People have no idea about how many RS apartments are illegally subletting on sites like airBnB, which let strangers into buildings, along with their bedbugs. That further robs the city of tax revenue, but hey. We can just make it up by charging $115 parking tickets to trucks that double park... That will really work, and keep our streets/air congenstion free!

No wonder why politicians are able to control voters like sheep to further their own agendas!

Well lets see, some taxpayers would rather see their money go to maintaining Grandma in her lifelong apartment than bailing out Wall Street. As tax expenditures go, it doesn't seem like a bad deal. On the other hand I agree with MAV that their needs to be much stricter enforcement of the RS guidelines so that things like illegal subletting, hiding income, and fraudulent "inheritance" happen less often if at all. LLs are often taken advantage of the by the system and unfortunately its always the small LL not the megacompanies who can afford it. So the best thing would be to allow tightened enforcement so that everyone plays by the rules, lifetime tenants and communities aren't threatened and small LLs can make some profit on their investment.

Wow, enforcement. What a concept! Good lucking getting that past the tenants groups...

No one wants to bail out wall street, and that is not a fair assumption to make that I rather. Btw, have you thought of the consequences of NOT bailing out wall st vs. subsidizing granny's apt (which MUST be the EXACT same one, btw)

Stuyvesant town/Peter Cooper village is preparing for a non eviction condo conversion of the largest privately owned rent stabilized/market rate community in NYC. Any thoughts?

the thing with grandma in the large rent controlled apartment, is that grandma can't just move out and find a smaller, cheaper rent controlled apartment suited to her current living needs.

>So enough of the price grandma out nonsense - taxpayers pick up the tab not grandma.

I really don't know why you hate grandma. Can't you see that when you attack grandma, you always lose. In court, in Albany, in the public opinion. Attacking grandma is a stupid strategy.

>inonada
about 8 hours ago
Posts: 4345
Member since: Oct 2008
ignore this person
report abuse MAV -- sorry for saying "bitching". Replace it with "complaining". Ditto for "hell" => "heck".

What about your comment that certain races are prone to being heavier? Any replacement for that racism?

"the thing with grandma in the large rent controlled apartment, is that grandma can't just move out and find a smaller, cheaper rent controlled apartment suited to her current living needs."

... I know of a grandma who was in a Classic Six that was well below market, but well above what she could sensibly afford. She struck a deal with the landlord (properly executed as a contract) such that she relinquished rights to the apartment she had been in for decades, and he rented her a 1 BR, renovated to her request, in one of his nearby (similar) buildings at an attractive price. She was guaranteed either no increase ever, or perhaps increases per rent stabilization; I can't remember. I suppose also a no-succession clause, but I know for a fact that neither of her two children would want to take it over anyway.

That's what a smart landlord does, instead of sulking over the phantom profits that might have been his had the world been a very different place. And instead of holding back on basic repairs or otherwise engaging in exactly the sort of behavior that inspired all the laws and procedures he objects to.

As they used to say in Viet Nam, Nyugen-Nyugen.

"the thing with grandma in the large rent controlled apartment, is that grandma can't just move out and find a smaller, cheaper rent controlled apartment suited to her current living needs."

but you can raise her rent from $100 to $1,000 and have the taxpayers pay the increase not grandma - do you think it makes sense to ask a private citizen (aka landlord) to subsidize grandma's rent?? We don't ask grocers to subsidize her food.
Her rent should be subsidized (if she indeed is poor), but that subsidy should be provided by all citizens.

I'm not attacking grandma - why would you say that? I'm saying old people are rich (true) I'm saying poor old people don't pay rent increases (true) - so raising grandma's rent doesn't "through her out on the street" - throwing grandma on the street is a scare tactic - nothing in my proposals would displace any grandmas.

Also - I didn't see huntersburg comment about certain races being prone to being heavier -but what do you disagree about that concept? Aren't Asians thinner than black people on average? Isn't that factual not racist? If my conceptions are in fact misconceptions please post a link -thanks

Jazzman, a question or two for you. When did you buy your RS / RC units? Have things worked out as you expected at your time of purchase w.r.t. rents?

>Also - I didn't see huntersburg comment about certain races being prone to being heavier -but what do you disagree about that concept? Aren't Asians thinner than black people on average? Isn't that factual not racist? If my conceptions are in fact misconceptions please post a link -thanks

Really?

inododo said this. Not me. But you think Asians are thinner than black people on average? That's pretty interesting. inododo wouldn't tell us which races he thought were prone to being heavier.
The thread appears to have been deleted.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MllQKvcWLm8J:streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/32084-no-kids-in-the-building+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

inonada
2 days ago
Posts: 4337
Member since: Oct 2008

No one said you were a racist. You were seeking information, and you got it. The form of housing discrimination you seek (against children) is protected alongside other protected classes when it comes to housing: race, religion, disabilities, etc.

You can choose to defend your bias, or you can try to understand why our society decided to start protecting children against such biases 24 years ago.

"Like kids, but don’t want them screeching around the hallways or bumping our knees into strollers in the elevators."

Let's break that down.

1) You have taken an activity kids are more likely to be engaged in (screeching), attributed it to all kid engaging in that activity inappropriately in your hallways, and used that as reasoning for your bias. Sorta like using disproportionately higher levels of drug dealing among certain minorities / males / 18-30 year-olds, and the possibility of bringing this into your hallways, as rationale for discrimination.

2) You have taken the mobility/space requirements of certain children and used that as an excuse for discrimination. Why stop at strollers? "Like disabled people, but don’t want bumping our knees into wheelchairs in the elevators." For that matter, why not discriminate against larger-set people based on the elevator excuse? Maybe it'd be best to just cross out all races that tend to be heavier, that'd probably be easiest on your knees in the elevator.

What we have here are a couple of LL's who, unable to afford better quality market-rate properties, bought heavily discounted properties with RC and RC tenants.

Now they want to bitch about how unfair the system is to them.

Given that one of these LL's claims to have significant RE expertise, one can only assume s/he understood what s/he was getting into. The math is too f'ing simple, and, if anything, in recent years, mostly courtesy of slurring Rudy, our "hero" of 9/11; RC and RS laws have changed in bigs ways to benefit LL's. So, for any prudent LL with RC/RS tenants, the regulatory surprises have benefitted.

And the whining about tenants who engage in tax fraud to hide income from their LL, and subletting for multiple of RS/RC rents is laughable propaganda. Similar to the hysteria over people buying cigarettes with food stamps.

> huntersburg - the laws have changed significantly over the last fews years - a landlord may have understood the rules when he bought a building 10 years ago but he didn't expect property taxes to double or triple - didn't expect oil to go from $10 barrel to $100 barrel, didn't expect courts to take 12 months to evict non-paying tenants - all the while rent increase of 3% per year.

get real! this is capitalism, no business person is entitled to a profit (well, unless you are a subsidized farmer). rents follow income, if costs increase during a recession, they cannot be passed on and that's ok. landlords take the risk of negative cash flow, it's part of their job to take those negative cash flow years & vacancy into account when avoiding over-bidding for property.

if they cannot handle negative cash flow years after having several positive ones, then they should fail and let somebody more professional take over. same thing with bad farmers and bad business people.

> These are risks in buying, change in circumstances need to be incorporated in purchasing. So 10 years ago when you purchased an apartment with a rent control tenant, you need to be even MORE CAREFUL in speculating future costs because it generates less income/runs at a higher loss.

exactly. another thing is that during the bubble many buildings suffered from predatory buyers that bought expecting to be able to kick those with rent protection OUT and making the units mkt rates. they didn't care for understanding the law, overestimated their own mighty and LOST. this is something to celebrate! not to cry about. the amount of people they kick out for not paying was TINY in comparison to what they expected it to be. these landlords are a BUNCH OF SUCKERS!

so now that they are giving up on kicking those with rental protection out, carrying costs become important. these type of landlords did everything needed to fail: they overpaid using debt and didn't do any non-criminal cash-flow analysis. now they are crying. it's great that they fail, have to sell for a proper price and decent landlords replace them. that's the great thing about capitalism when it works well, the more capable guy wins long term and the reckless is out.

> The landlord's advocacy organization has for decades refused to allow open books of their businesses, preferring instead to hide behind a false image of poor little mom-and-pop investors, as if they owned a few apartments over their candy shoppe. So broad claims of hardship really need to be tossed aside.

so true!!! just like farmers, big agro hiding behind tiny family farms. i fail to see why at any rate, should mom-and-pop investors be protected, same w/ tiny family farms. if they are so inefficient they need so much help just to make it, then bigger landlords/agro would do a much better job.

my market rate rental rents now for $$ comparable to 2007, having cheapened when i reneg'd my lease in 2009, and bounced when i did so in 2011. In real terms my rent is probably at 2005 levels. My LL's expenses have gone up during that period. My LL's experience is likely similar to most.

Sounds like the experience of our two LL's here, who own lesser quality building with RS/RC tenants, is also quite similar.

gotta love these invisible hand guys.....who think they deserve help when their business decisions prove faulty

jazzman,
> The City knows exactly how much money I'm losing every year.

do you own the building out-right or do you have a debt on it?

what i meant is that you should consider cash-flow aside from your mortgage if you have one. renters shouldn't be compensating you if you overpaid on the building, that's your loss to take.

> before enough market rate renters say enough is enough. Stabilized tenants are 1/3 rd of the City's populous. They can't keep the power forever UNLESS they allow larger annual rent increases to keep the gap from widening too much.

the gap will be closed, no doubt. but not by getting rid of RS but by mkt renters saying "enough" to 8% annual increases, even 5% increases. they will wake up and demand that increases cannot be higher than what their wage increases are.

you as a smart landlord will find the way to make it work. stop overpaying for maintenance, do many of the jobs required yourself, and the like.

> So Jazzman's complaint is that in this RC apartment, the LL decided not to remove violations and not to do any major capital improvements (i.e., maintenance) over the course of half a century.
In other words, the LL has deliberately flouted the law, presumably hoping to create conditions so bad that the tenant will leave, and, under the vacancy decontrol rules, the apartment will go off rent regulation entirely.

BINGO! Jazzman going out of biz might be a thing to celebrate, why would anybody become a landlord when they don't have enough pride on their properties to remove violations!? Seems we all win if Jazzman fails and a more capable landlord steps in, hopefully at a much lower price so that carrying mtg debt is not a burden and that $ can be better allocated to maintenance.

>> my market rate rental rents now for $$ comparable to 2007, having cheapened when i reneg'd my lease in 2009, and bounced when i did so in 2011. In real terms my rent is probably at 2005 levels. My LL's expenses have gone up during that period. My LL's experience is likely similar to most. Sounds like the experience of our two LL's here, who own lesser quality building with RS/RC tenants, is also quite similar.

Wrong. Your rent's flatness since 2007 matches Miller Samuel data (median down 2.x%, average up 2.x%). The RS/RC tenants have had 16% in increases since 2007.

all this crying by RS/RC landlords cause they got a 2% increase? wow, why weren't they crying when their tenants were getting tiny or none wage increases? ultimately, if they want higher rents, landlords should pray for higher wages and low UE.

BTW how many specu-investors (predatory equity) bought during the bubble with the aim to cash in on asset appreciation w/out doing the math about carrying costs? wonder how many of the smaller & less professional ones are this type. i've know of a building that feel on REO due to the over-bidding of the incompetent ex-landlord. during the last year, it was an ordeal for tenants to get basic repairs done, like a leaking roof.

so smart renters out there: it's a good investment to spend some energy making sure you are avoiding small wanna-be Donald Trumps, bigger companies are less risky.

"There is NO new rent control in New York."

There is new rent stabilization in NYC. Given the terms are used fairly interchangeably, and this form is different than old RS anyway, I think this one was pretty obvious.

"The rules say that rent increases should be enough to cover these increases - those were the rules when the landlord bought - but even the RGB admits that their rent increases aren't enough to cover increased costs."

Yeah, tons of hypocrisy here. When incomes are down, tenant groups go "don't increase, look at our incomes". When incomes are up "look at costs".

Forgetting that RS needs to be overhauled completely, they need to at least stick to covering costs fairly.

oodia
2 days ago
Posts: 50
Member since: Jun 2009
ignore this person
report abuse

We were having this debate last night so I figured post it here.

There is no more new rent control, so even if renting is cheaper than buying today, will the landlords eventually screw you within a couple years with excessive increases? We already faced a big jump this year and then saw other units in the same line going for much more a couple months later closer into the summer peak.

If this is the case then it would be tough to stay in the same place for 5 years or certainly more.

hoodia, you are obviously bitter about your failings financially. no one is "screwing" you by charging what they can for their product. grow up. get over it. or move out and for fucks sake stop whining.

Jim why do you hate renters?

Also, your "wife", is she seeking amnesty under the new program, or is she still sticking out out in the sham?