Quinn, de Blasio, Liu: Freeze RS rents

"This year, the board has proposed an increase ranging from 3.25 percent to 6.25 percent for a one-year lease and 5 percent to 9.5 percent for a two-year lease. Last year, the board approved an increase of 2 percent for a one-year lease and 4 percent for a two-year lease."

The prior 2% and 4% seem to be reasonable in this low inflation environment. Discussion of 9.5% over 2 years creates these inflamed situations which creates the zero increase extremism on the other side.

Also NYCHA has a $200MM gap.

This whole thing is stupid. Rent control is a largely irrelevant concept outside of Manhattan -- political pandering on this issue is just headline-seeking. While it ought to be eliminated entirely, so much time, human capital and money is wasted debating rent control, lobbying it, seeking to game it, opposing it, and even empaneling a host of hack semi-politicians to sit on rent control boards. If we are going to have rent controls, the permissible rent increaes ought to be tied to some objective price index like CPI, and remove the constant debate about this issue on all sides.

If the purpose of rent control is to preserve affordable housing then it should be adjusted for the number of people in a given size of apartment. That is, in a studio occupied by one person the rent increase is 2%, where in a 1 BR occupied by 1 it's 5%, in 2 br occupied by 1 it's 10%, etc. This way the city can level the playing field for the families who must now cram into a studio because appropriately sized housing is used as mansions for seniors.

Also by weight, because a household needs to spend much more money on food if they have more obese people. Therefore they have less to pay in rent.

I too hate all those modest-income old ladies who make life so difficult for middle-American emigres to NY by causing a housing shortage. Just imagine how much more the financial services industry has to spend on salaries as a result. It's killing the local economy.

>That is, in a studio occupied by one person the rent increase is 2%, where in a 1 BR occupied by 1 it's 5%, in 2 br occupied by 1 it's 10%, etc.

Incentive to have more children?

AH, you I like.

ali r.

On the other side, Weiner: http://metcouncilonhousing.org/news_and_issues/tenant_newspaper/2013/may/why_no_tenant_should_vote_for_anthony_weiner

"The prior 2% and 4% seem to be reasonable in this low inflation environment. Discussion of 9.5% over 2 years creates these inflamed situations which creates the zero increase extremism on the other side. "

You do realize market rate apartments go up around 5-7% most years, right?

(400+ unit manhattan LL)

zero percent is insulting. Is thais relly what is has come to?

NOTHING will be solves as long as RS is 1 class. The variety of RS apartments and tenants is far greater than can be made fair with broad rules. Manhattan and OBs need to be separated, as do Stu/1beds from larger apartments. Generational succession needs to be wiped out, and there MUST be a system to check WHO is living there. Also, the 180 day rule needs to be wiped out. You should not get to keep a RS apartment if you have a 2nd residence ANYWHERE.

>You do realize market rate apartments go up around 5-7% most years, right?

a) No
b) excess increases in part bc supply is constrained due to the rent reg apartments
c) ownership / operating costs aren't increasing by that much

se, why?

C0C0, how much has your rent risen?

The Rent Guidelines Board has announced increases of 4% for one-year leases and 7.75% for two-year.

"The Rent Guidelines Board has announced increases of 4% for one-year leases and 7.75% for two-year."

That's still less than a lot of market-rate increases in the last few years. They really need to do away with all these subsidies and price controls. Over 60% of the NYC rental market is government controlled in some way: rent stabilized, rent controlled, public housing, Mitchell Lama, In Rem, HUD, etc.

I also read today that the city banned studios < 400 square feet back in 1955, so NYC is now way behind other cities in building micro apartments. (See http://finance.yahoo.com/news/micro-apartments-anti-mcmansions-102100265.html.) How is the city supposed to create a new tech sector when there are so few good housing options for tech workers?

In addition to all the subsidies and price controls, I can only imagine all the barriers that NYC creates to prevent new rental housing from being built.

Pretty healthy increases.

Acccording to brooks2, this is all moot, because all you have to do even if you rent under normal circumstances is tell your landlord how valuable you are as a tenant, and the they'll never raise your rent anyway...

Speaking of, whatever happened to upperwestrenter and his pet iguana?

F quinn de blasio and liu (the latter two being in the pockets of unions as well).

When costs don't go up much, they scream and dance that rents shouldn't go up because of then. When costs do go up, now it is income-based.

So, when incomes go up, should there be jumps in rent?

Can't have it both ways, putzes

>Can't have it both ways, putzes

Why are you so angry about rent stabilized rents?

greensdale - my issue with rent stabilized rents are many.

1. The biggest issue is that there is no income requirements as long as your rent is cheap. Allowing people who make the median, or 3x the median, or a million a year to keep a below market rent is nonsensical. There is no requirement banning people with huge amounts of assets from having stabilized units.

2. The costs to monitor the system are greater than the actual benefit received by NYC residents. Both Harvard and Wharton have done extensive research on our system and they both conclude that rents overall in the City would fall if stabilization were eliminated. So we spend hundreds of millions on housing courts, HPD, DHCR, RGB, DOB etc etc to enforce these ridiculous rules and in the end the system actually drives up rents. A better system should be implemented. One that is simpler/cheaper to manage.

3. The system puts an unhealthy burden on 20 somethings. 20 somethings are, by far, the poorest generation in our country. They are forced to pay higher rents than my older tenants. Those 70 and older are, by far, the richest generation in our country. So the richest generation benefits at the expense of the poorest generation. In NYC there is direct correlation between your age and your rent. The older you are the less you pay in rent. It's completely backwards.

4. Rent stabilization and control protect people with $500/month rents. No one should have a $500/month rent - anywhere in NYC - even a studio in the Bronx. This year a person with a $500/month will see his rent raised to $520. So my market rate tenants, who are already paying over $2k will see their rents go up by $200 to $300 and my tenants with $500 rents will have their rent go up by $20. It doesn't make any sense.

5. RS claims its goal is to eliminate a housing shortage, but it A. allows tenants to live in Florida 180 days/year B. Allows tenants to have multiple apartments/houses and C. it creates an environment where four bedroom apartments are being occupied by single people. How do these rules help the goals of the system?

6. It forces tenants with low rents and bad landlords to live in deplorable circumstances.

I could go on but won't. We should eliminate RS over the next 20/30 years in a slow and humane way and replace it with an expanded voucher system. A voucher system gives aid to the poor (where it is needed) and it gives the tenants power. If their landlord is a scumbag then they can transfer their voucher to another affordable apartment across the street.

You forgot to mention your primary reason against RS.

> Why are you so angry about rent stabilized rents?

I'm not angry about rent stabilized rent. I'm angry about politicians being hypocrites and morons about yet another topic.

We have a sad sad set of choices for mayor this time around. Bloomberg will be laughing has ass off when folks realize what they had...

greensdale - I won't take your bait - if you'd like to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current program I'm happy to discuss.

You won't take my bait or you won't be straightforward and acknowledge to the reader that you have a personal vested interest as a property owner with rent regulated tenants?
This is like the landlord coalition calling themselves Concerned Citizens for Happy Tenants or some equivalently deceptive name that makes them lose credibility for their arguments once their true motives are discovered. And so the cycle of tenant / landlord mistrust continues.

a personal vested interest as a property owner with rent regulated tenants who bought his building(s) at a massive discount as a result of the heavy percentage of apartments (or perhaps ALL?) under rent-regulation.

Put simply, rent regulations allowed him to buy his building(s) for pennies on the dollar, and now (transaction completed) he's an opponent of them.

Huh!

greensdale - you say "you won't be straightforward and acknowledge to the reader that you have a personal vested interest as a property owner with rent regulated tenants? "

- But I said "my market rate tenants," - isn't that straightforward enough that I'm a landlord? I have never made an attempt in any of my almost 700 posts on this website to hide the fact that I own and manage rent regulated apartments.

I make no apologies for my actions nor my career choice. My family and I dedicate our lives to helping people and find many opportunities as a landlord in NYC to make apartments/buildings/neighborhoods/lives better.

As someone working with the system on a daily basis it gives me better insight into the problems with the system. The system is awful. It doesn't achieve it goals. It should be replaced with a better system.

Rent stabilization has many strengths and weaknesses. Ignoring either is unwise.

alanhart - both Harvard and Wharton have done extensive studies on rent regulation in NYC - both agree rents will go down if stabilization were eliminated.
You accuse me of "talking my book" - but it's exactly the opposite. If I got my way and the program were eliminated I would actually lose money.
The reason the program still exists is that most landlords and most politicians want it to exist.

But the system is flawed. There is a better way to do this.

>- But I said "my market rate tenants," -

In the middle of item 4.

>I make no apologies for my actions nor my career choice.

Ok, were you asked to apologize for your career?

>My family and I dedicate our lives to helping people and find many opportunities as a landlord in NYC to make apartments/buildings/neighborhoods/lives better.

Can you clarify - is this your career or charity?

>Rent stabilization has many strengths and weaknesses.

Ok, what system, entity or person doesn't have strengths and weaknesses?

> Ignoring either is unwise.

Thank you Oh Wise One.

>both agree rents will go down if stabilization were eliminated.

You have to answer, who pays more, who pays less, not what is the overall impact on the system. There is not one renter who is representative of the entire system.

Here's what you said on who should pay more and who less.

>3. The system puts an unhealthy burden on 20 somethings. 20 somethings are, by far, the poorest generation in our country. They are forced to pay higher rents than my older tenants. Those 70 and older are, by far, the richest generation in our country. So the richest generation benefits at the expense of the poorest generation. In NYC there is direct correlation between your age and your rent. The older you are the less you pay in rent. It's completely backwards

I'm not sure I agree that senior citizens as a class should be paying more so that 20 somethings pay less. Why should long-time NYers pay more for the benefit of fleeting newcomers?

> If I got my way and the program were eliminated I would actually lose money.

How so?

but...you're an internet troll.

vs hanging out at the bottom of the C0lumbia C0unty side of the Rip Van Winkle Bridge?

where do you hang out?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nycha-tenants-fingerprinted-bloomberg-article-1.1428791

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sharpton_may_not_endorse_mayoral_zveVV1sB10gLoFsSgAhC8O

And Cuomo: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324123004579055472635305300.html

Cuomo Stays Far From New York City Mayoral Race but Albany isn't so far from C0lumbia C0unty
A Mayoral Candidate's Tax-Increase Proposal Would Require Governor's Approval

By ERICA ORDEN and JESSICA BAKEMAN CONNECT
AU SABLE FORKS, N.Y.—Gov. Andrew Cuomo has kept himself far removed this summer from the New York City mayor's race, both literally and figuratively.

Nevertheless, with just several days until Tuesday's primary, Mr. Cuomo stands at the center of perhaps the most heated topic on the campaign trail: frontrunner Bill de Blasio's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for prekindergarten and after-school programs, a measure that would require the approval of Mr. Cuomo and the Legislature.

Mr. de Blasio's plan was attacked on Tuesday during the last televised Democratic debate before the primary as unlikely to pass.

On Wednesday, Mr. Cuomo declined to offer an opinion on Mr. de Blasio's plan when asked after an event here in Au Sable Forks, a tiny Adirondacks hamlet nearly 300 miles north of New York City.

"I am going to stay out of the New York City mayoral," said Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat like Mr. de Blasio. "Let's find out who the mayor is and what policies they actually put forth, and then let's take a look at them and consider them, and we'll have an opinion."

Mr. Cuomo would have considerable sway over Mr. de Blasio's plan, which would increase the city's income tax on people making more than $500,000 to raise about a half-billion dollars. Mr. Cuomo hasn't increased income taxes as governor, and the state will give middle-income New Yorkers with children a $350 tax credit for three years beginning next year. He did, however, engineer in late 2011 a successful effort to lock in parts of past tax increases that were set to expire.

Asked at the debate whether he had assurances from Mr. Cuomo about a tax increase, Mr. de Blasio said there is an "educational crisis" that will mobilize city residents to fight for his plan. "They will demand it of Albany, and Albany has to listen."

The governor has almost entirely avoided any participation in the mayor's race, withholding a primary endorsement and refraining, even behind the scenes, from maneuvering for or against any candidate, according to people familiar with the matter.

He has also quieted his presence in New York City itself, holding no public events there since early July—skipping gatherings he has attended in the past, such as Sunday's West Indian Day Parade—and instead venturing frequently upstate.

"I have no plans to get involved in the future," Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, of the race.

The governor, a Westchester County resident, said he isn't registered to vote in New York City, "so it's not a situation where I think it's appropriate for me to express a preference."

Mr. de Blasio's rivals had their own opinions about how the governor and Legislature would react to Mr. de Blasio's plan. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn pointed out that Albany had agreed to let the city raise income taxes only twice in recent history: after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and during a period of record-high murders in the 1990s. It was noted that the previous tax increases didn't come in gubernatorial election years, which 2014 is. Rival Bill Thompson characterized the plan as "something that's never going to happen."

For Mr. Cuomo, revealing his position on Mr. de Blasio's plan or in the mayoral race in general carries little political benefit. The governor has a thicket of personal and professional ties to many Democratic candidates.

Mr. Thompson was a chairman of Mr. Cuomo's gubernatorial campaign. Mr. de Blasio was a deputy to Mr. Cuomo during his tenure at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. And Ms. Quinn, who endorsed Mr. Cuomo's candidacy for state attorney general, worked closely with the governor in 2011 to successfully advance legislation that legalized same-sex marriage.

Mr. Cuomo has kept his public comments about the candidates to a minimum, saying in recent weeks only that the race was "summer political theater in New York" and that "We laugh, because if we didn't laugh, we could cry." Mr. Cuomo sounded more optimistic about the field Wednesday.

"They are good candidates," he said. "I think it's a good debate that is going on. I've worked with many of them in the past in different capacities."

Mr. de Blasio is far from the only candidate with proposals that extend up to Albany.

Ms. Quinn, former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner and Republican candidate Joe Lhota all believe the city should wrest control of part or all of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority from the state. Mr. Weiner's proposals also include giving New York City permanent mayoral control of public schools. Mayoral control, in fact, is one area where the outgoing mayor, Michael Bloomberg, proved successful in Albany, running on a campaign platform of delivering mayoral control of schools to the city from the state, which few thought possible.

Write to Erica Orden at erica.orden@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared September 4, 2013, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Cuomo Stays Far From Mayor Race.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/mayors-relationship-with-speaker-comes-with-candid-fashion-advice/

I am not in the real estate business, but I do live in New York and have friends in all walks of life. For at least a decade, this problem has become sharply clear to me. I have dozens of friends in RS or RC apartments. Very few are in all-rental buildings. Most are in Coop or condo buildings. The few in rental buildings seem to have a sweet deal and none complain. The many in coop or condo buildings have long hair-raising stories, too gruesome to go into the details in this discussion. IMO, harassment of this sort should be punishable by 20 years to life; that would end it. But I digress.

How did we get to such a situation? When the co-oping boom started a couple of decades ago, the rights - or if that offends you, the humane treatment of - people already in rental apartments was not addressed, except from a profit point of view. These people didn't need the right to "buy in" to their apartments, because few could afford that. They needed an OUT, which was never provided. When greed led to the harassment many have suffered (some for DECADES), the effectiveness of human rights laws and organizations that were supposed to protect them were reduced; and people in frightening situations had no where to go for relief.

Are these people well-off? Despite all your sad stories of abuse by wealthy renters, among the people I know EVERY RS or RC tenant is elderly or disabled. Few can afford more than survival lifestyle, and some have difficulties with that. All would have great difficulty finding alternative lodging they could afford.

There is a solution. I personally believe RS and RC laws should NEVER have existed in the first place. But they do. We need to make peace with that. Landlords can - and many do - offer deals to people willing to move. But coops and condos are less likely to offer buyouts. Solution: Make it a law that any rental tenant can get 1/3 the value of the apartment to leave it. That would give landlords and coops the ability to cash in on their property in the open markets. AND it would create a new class of BUYERS with down payment in hand looking for housing.

I see no reason to reward greed and harassment - and every reason to restore civility in this city. This solution would do all of that and more.

Your responses, suggestions and criticisms will be most welcome and appreciated. Thank you for reading.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/alleged-shakedown-nycha-tenants-article-1.1561977