Benefit of rent stabilization?

RS isn't just the rent. It's also certain rights that you have in such a unit.

Sure, a right to lease renewal, etc, but if the landlord wanted to, he could hike the rent up to the maximum legal rent which would be effectively kicking me out anyway... What are other benefits?

No direct experience with RS, but I thought that your landlord's ability to increase your rent each year was regulated by the city. Wouldn't that preclude the landlord from jacking up your rent? I though that THIS was the major benefit of RS...but perhaps I am misinformed.

Because the maximum legal rent allowed under rent stabilization for my apt is about $2,500, but the market rate for the apt is way below that (like $1,500 maybe?). If he wanted to, he could raise the rent to the legal $2,500 max, which would effectively kick me out. I'm currently paying well below the maximum legal rent.

So, I'm wondering what other benefits of RS there are...

As Flutistic said, there're lots of other protections that unregulated tenants don't have. The big one is succession rights. Look at tenant.net or somewhere like that.

I guess I'm not sure that the landlord has the right to jack up your rent more than the permitted annual increase no matter what the maximum legal amount. I don't believe the landlord can do this. However, I defer to the more knowledgeable contributors to this forum.

Where on the UWS are studios renting for only $1500?

Are you posting in a time machine from 1997?

wiivile's question turns around the notion of "preferential rent", a case where the landlord chooses to offer a particular tenant a LOWER than permitted rent for one particular lease. Courts have held that that lower rent does not set a precedence for dollar amount at renewal, so a parallel legal rent trail is maintained.

Matthew asks a good question. I've seen townhouse apartments that just barely squeak by on legal minimum size for an apartment. Also, there are SRO "apartments" in hotels.

Lastly, the high legal rent for such a teeny apartment: Is this in a building with a tax break (to landlord) in exchange for rent stabilization at building rehab/construction? That makes teeny implausible.

Is this apartment rent-controlled rather than rent-stabilized? Rent control comes with a magical theoretical number called "Maximum Base Rent" that's always much higher than the legal rent, but usually lower than market rent.

Very mysterious.

My preferential rent is actually only $1,000, because it's such a small studio (less than 150 sq ft). The maximum legal rent is almost $2,500. At any rate, what I'm reading from here is that preferential rent is not bound by the renewal increases set by the Rent Guidelines Board, correct?

Certain technical requirements seem to be needed to preserve landlord's right to end/change preferential rent:
http://www.nyshcr.org/Rent/factsheets/orafac40.htm

Were those met? Also, did you independently verify with NYS HCR that the rent history you're being presented with is historically true and accurate? It seems quite impossible for the legal max to have reached the level you're stating, the market for 150 sf studios always having been much less than the market for livable spaces.

How could any legal apartment possibly be 150 square feet? That's a kitchen. And nothing else.

I'll take a look at the lease to see if the preferential rent was stated to be for the term of the lease or the term of the tenancy. If it's for just the term of the lease, then the owner could easily jack up the rent to $2,500 in order to get rid of me (he has no reason to get rid of me, I'm an excellent tenant, I'm just talking theoretically).

And I object to the notion that 150 sq ft is not a livable space! I'm a student, and I never cook, so all I need is a bed, a dresser, and a half-sized fridge :)

If it doesn't have a kitchen, it's not a legal apartment.

It has a kitchen... half-sized fridge, stovetop, sink.

By the way, since the Rent Guidelines Board will not vote on the rent increases for October 1, 2014-September 30, 2015 until June 23, and since my renewal lease will go into effect October 1, and since the renewal lease has to be offered no later than 90 days before the expiration of the current lease (which would be July 2), doesn't that mean the landlord only has 9 days to prepare and send me the renewal lease? (June 23 - July 2) That's not much time... They really make it hard on the landlord.

Remember this one? http://streeteasy.com/talk/discussion/36541-rental-at-337-w-76th-street

Less than 150 ft², and it went in a few days for $1,000 or so.

This is a significantly unique thread on SE. The OP has all of the facts correct. And the responses don't.

helpful

Wiivile I'm in the same situation. I agree that there is little value in the fact that it is RS if there is a preferential rent without which you would move out.

gothamsboro makes a great point - the op has it right (OP, I hope you're studying real estate - we need more brains like yours in this business).
Essentially you have a market rate lease. You are afforded some additional protections against harassment, getting a renewal lease, reduction in services etc but they are nominal. If you like your apartment stay and if not move on. By the time market rates catch up to your legal rent you'll be a millionaire and could afford a much better apartment…… most likely the reason your legal rent is so high is that so many others who lived in this unit before you have found little protection from the stabilization rules and have moved on - each vacancy increases the legal rent and the next tenant is provided even less protection.
btw OP - you are correct about the 9 days....

I have a RS studio in the 40's easyside and I only pay $1000. STAY PUT or if you move don't let it get away

Currently have a friend that has a RS huge 2bd n 2bath with roof terrace in the 40's on the east side. Had the apt since 79 and since she didn't agree to move to a buyout for $125k meanwhile she pays about$1700 management is trying EVERY scumbag trick to get her for back rent from YEARS BACK.

>management is trying EVERY scumbag trick to get her for back rent from YEARS BACK.

They need to be careful because of the treble penalties that are possible.

>management is trying EVERY scumbag trick to get her for back rent from YEARS BACK.

They need to be careful because of the treble penalties that are possible.

They were refusing to give her a signed lease because she didn't take the paltry buyout. After she got a signed lease they are saying she owes about 5k in rent !!

>They were refusing to give her a signed lease

You don't need a signed lease. Your rights as a rent regulated tenant do not disappear if you do not have a signed lease.

>You don't need a signed lease. Your rights as a rent regulated tenant do not disappear if you do not have a signed lease.

Not everyone knows that and certainly the SCUM BAG landlord won't tell..will he ?

Anyone heard from Brooks2 lately?

>They were refusing to give her a signed lease

You don't need a signed lease. Your rights as a rent regulated tenant do not disappear if you do not have a signed lease.

And of course management was going to give her that info...right ??

A law firm has offered to take on my friends case pro-bono. This is going to be a David and Goliath fight