Rent control

>> Like I said above, I personally did not benefit much from that monetary policy, because I did not have much money to put to work in early 2020 and prior. So I just got the downside of most assets being too expensive after the bull run, partially cushioned by my 3% mortgage.

So what? The taxpayer is not responsible for whether or not you had money to put to work 2020 or earlier. The taxpayer is not responsible for your decision to buy expensive assets in 2021. The taxpayer is solely responsible for (your share of) the $1T+ losses from 3% mortgages. It’s all conflated from your perspective, but from the perspective of taxpayer, we just shoved (say) $150K to you as a wealthy person who neither needs nor deserves it, via a subsidized $1M mortgage where we’re left footing the bill. What purpose does that serve? We want our $150K back!

Now of course, you’ll disagree with that narrow perspective and prefer to consider it from the broader viewpoint that you presented. You bring in portions of the policy that are not directly related to the taxpayer, your cosmic balance with respect to the long-run policy holistically, how the 3% mortgage incentivized you to take actions you would otherwise not take, how that was all part of the intention / design of the policy, etc. Which is fine, I get it.

But at the same time, you’re not affording RS tenants the same courtesy. Maybe they view their RS as part of the cosmic bargain for living in a crime-ridden city. Maybe they feel that acceptable land use in NYC should revolve around its residents being given predictable, inflation-adjusted rents for homes rather than speculation and profiteering. Maybe they were incentivized, just like you, to take long-lasting financial actions they would not have otherwise taken without the policy.

I already said above that I think free money policy was dumb. It is being reversed going forward.

We know that rent regulation creates unwanted distortions and is not well targeted. Why not reverse it going forward and focus on policies that are better targeted and create less distortions?

No one is advocating these tenants pay back years of subsidies. But just because a policy exists today, does not mean it should continue to exist forever.

Nada,

On Fed, would you be in favor of eliminating or significantly reducing the role of Fed when it comes to inflation/monetay policy (not payment system, liquidy provision etc) and let market dictate interest rates as if Fed decides the interest rates, they will always be accused of mistakes in some one's favor (whose favor subject to debate) in addition to funding profligate federal deficits when they do QE. Or mistakes are to be expected in such forward looking decisions and we live with it?

Personally I would be happy if QE is taken out of their mandate as it is really legal market manipulation.

>> Why not reverse it going forward and focus on policies that are better targeted and create less distortions?

I suspect that’s what the legislature attempted with their 2019 changes and the 2023 adjustment currently being contemplated by Hochul. However, the target policies and distortions the proponents had in mind likely differs from yours. Land use regulations fostering stable rents citywide seem to be their policy priorities, while yours seem to be free market land usage along means-distributed subsidies for those relegated to the hinterlands. Both seem like fine policies to be debated, but not everyone sees eye to eye on which is better.

To make an analogy, the US has a green card lottery that is random. The winners not only get to come to the US, but they also get to become citizens, pass those rights onto their spouses, their children, their parent & siblings, etc. into perpetuity. And their family can do the same. The losers gotta reapply next year and hope for the best.

Maybe it’d be more “fair” to simply end the green card lottery program and instead send $10/yr to everyone outside the US. And to ensure the system stops its root unfairness, perhaps disallow family considerations going forward.

The main root issue is a lack of supply.

Why can’t free market solve city’s housing supply issues? What impediments do you, Ali and 30 see?

>>> Maybe it’d be more “fair” to simply end the green card lottery program and instead send $10/yr to everyone outside the US.

Not that I like the green card lottery system, but the difference between rent regulation and green card lottery is that the winners aren’t being subsidized by losers. With rent regulation, those paying market prices are subsidizing those in regulated units.

>> Or mistakes are to be expected in such forward looking decisions and we live with it?

A functioning Fed / govt’s job is to make the best decisions they can given the uncertainty. The Fed’s job is not an easy one, basically equivalent to predicting the market. If someone here think it’s easy, just lay big bets in TIPS and invite the rest of us peanut gallery here your summer pad.

A functioning democracy’s job is to always second-guess the Fed / govt with asinine expectations.

>> Personally I would be happy if QE is taken out of their mandate as it is really legal market manipulation.

QE is fine / good IMO. It was used to good effect post-GFC. Same when COVID hit, but somewhere between early 2020 and early 2022, depending on one’s opinions, it went off the rails and because a major unintended screw up.

Market manipulation is the wrong term. Not everyone in a market is seeking a profit. E.g., hedgers are seeking to hedge. When you sign up for a 30yr mortgage to buy your house, you’re a hedger. If you were a rates speculator, you probably wouldn’t speculate with such a weird instrument.

Govt actors are seeking to maximize real GDP growth. That’s the measure to evaluate them on — did they help or hurt long-term GDP prospects? So they will take actions to improve that, even at the cost of maximal profit. But they’re vary transparent about this, which is why I disagree with a “market manipulation” characterization. Their goal is to get everyone into a nice little frenzy, enough to increase demand just enough, but not so much as to stoke inflation. They went too far, which is gonna cost not only in terms of this $1T, but also in terms of lesser real GDP growth from monetary policy that will be tighter than it would have otherwise been had they done it better. Successful speculators will have borrowed on the cheap, without frenzying themselves into frothy assets, or else otherwise selling them while they are still frothy to provide supply to excess demand, counteracting the Fed’s over-stimulation. Effectively, they are acting as a shadow Fed of sorts by second-guessing the policy, placing opposite trades with opposite rate effects, and trying to profit. On the flip side, when consumers are still out spending like it’s 1999, they neutralize money supply by taking the other side.

Everyone has a role to play. Could the Fed have played this one better? Absolutely. If you took them out of the picture and let a market free-for-all ensue in March 2020, would real GDP have come out better. Highly doubtful. We shouldn’t consider perfect the enemy of good.

"Why can’t free market solve city’s housing supply issues?"

What more proof do you need than it never has?
Look at where the vast majority of new rental housing has been built in NYC:
Luxury neighborhoods only (except maybe Bushwick).

And Mr Market does things like take a few small rental buildings with small, affordable units and turns them into tall towers, with very expensive units, less of them, which will be vacant most of the time.
https://www.curbed.com/2022/07/bigger-building-fewer-apartments-nyc.html

One problem which I have addressed before is that developers have gotten huge windfalls with the unrestricted upzonings of the past 2 decades. If we want affordable housing we need to zone for it. Roll back all the upzonings and redo them where the added FAR is only for affordable housing and market rate stay with the old zoning.

Also another problem with ZIRP has been that it has incentivized property owners with developable properties to just let them sit vacant or underutilized for long periods.

For example, there was a taxpayer which was only recently demolished on West 8th Street and MacDougall. It says vacant for almost 20 years. But the owner could afford to burn money not event renting the easily leasable retail spaces and simply chose to sit on it.

>>>What more proof do you need than it never has?

We don’t have free market in NYC. We have a market with rent regulation. Various research indicate that luxury rentals and condos and gentrification are actually a side effect of rent regulation. See bottom of page 5 and page 6 of this paper for conclusions:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/FileV2/23471/Brookings---Rent-Control-article.pdf

Of big cities in the US, Chicago is one with very affordable housing (much cheaper than Miami and many smaller cities) and no rent regulations. They just build, build, build.

Nada, I see your points about QE being helpful to the econony as least being helpful to GDP growth is the intent. I still think there should be some limit on QE as it gives a free pass to the govt spending without some market control mechanism of higher long dates rates (5+ years).

I don’t follow, 300. How is it giving a free pass to govt spending?

>>>And Mr Market does things like take a few small rental buildings with small, affordable units and turns them into tall towers, with very expensive units

Tall towers instead of small buildings do increase the number of units available, so that is a good thing. Units sitting empty is unfortunate (and likely a temporary issue) but at least these units are generally paying sky-high RE taxes, supporting the city’s budget, including its public housing programs.

If the rates were to remain high in the absense of QE, it increases the cost of additional budget deficits (in form of higher interest paid) due to govt spending. So Congress will have some pressure to think about spending - at least they can see clear market signals of the spending effect with smaller lag vs in the case of QE where the lags are much larger.

I see your point. OTOH, it’d be somewhat cynical for the govt (via Fed) to whip its citizenry into spending without doing the same itself (via Congress / Treasury).

Ha. No one can tell the effects for sure but a guiding principle can be "know the effect of your spending sooner that later". There even have been / are believers that deficits do not matter as the demand of US treasuries is endless.

Yeah. I guess my expectations from Congress are no higher than my expectations from people. I am often reminded of the thread here from Aug 2021, when CPI was running at 5.x% and core CPI at 4.x%, asking how people incorporate foreseeable (though uncertain) increases to rates (even modest ones) in their purchase decisions. I characterized the reaction back then as:

>> The general impression I'm getting from this thread is a combination of "I don't think interest rates are ever going up" and "Even if they do go up, I can handle the payments". Very little in the way "Have interest rates been engineered to make it appear cheaper today than it really is?" and/or "What does this mean about how I should think about the price I'm paying?"

People seemed to be falling over themselves to leverage into low yielding assets under the assumption of ZIRP-forever and/or “if rates go up, I’ll pay it off”, effectively mentally accepting their own income & asset as ZIRP-forever, even if the future were no longer ZIRP-based. And that future was hard to foresee despite obvious signs of inflation all around them, to say nothing of the CPI prints.

Now, this is a group of highly educated people with better knowledge of finance than most. Congress is a fractious mix of people with varying degrees of sense, trying to get things done in a politicized environment. Sure, they have infinite access to experts, but is it really reasonable to expect more from them? They’ll get their shit together when they are forced to do so, but no sooner.

Krolik,
I this you simply continue denying flat facts and then dropping when proven wrong.
"We don’t have free market in NYC. We have a market with rent regulation. "
BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT
New construction buildings are not Rent regulated at all, unless the builders CHOOSE to take subsidies, and even then they are only regulated while they get those subsidies.

"Tall towers instead of small buildings do increase the number of units available,"
Right after I proved that wasn't true.

Fine.

Study after study has proven that puppies and kittens don't get hurt in cities with rent regulations. In addition they have proven there is less incidence of cancer. It also promotes world peace. In fact, your boss told me yesterday that you were only hired because NYC has Rent Stabilization.

Of course new development units are at the high end of the market. Partly, this is natural, partly caused by various distortions from 421a and rent regulations.

Natural:
The old, unexciting coops of today were shiny, top of the line new construction units of decades ago. As new high-end condos are built, wealthy people move there, and leave more old coops left for people like me to buy. When I bought an old and unexciting coop unit, I vacated an even less exciting unit in a market-rate rental building, creating more supply on the lower end and helping keep prices down. It’s fine to build high end units to help housing supply issues, as long as you are increasing the number of units and bedrooms total. I fail to see how a tall tower might have fewer units than the small building it replaced.
Non-primary residence units are an issue, but I am not sure developers are the cause of it. You are implying that development of high end condos in NYC has induced demand for vacation and part-time properties for rich people. I don’t think demand works like that. I would think these people would be buying and renovating older properties if high end condos were not available.

Distortions:
I am pretty sure that 20-year tax abatement trick encourages building as high-end units as possible, because highest-end units pay more taxes, and so the abatement becomes more valuable.

Also, if landlords cannot make profits or even cover costs of their rental buildings, they have a powerful incentive to convert units to coops and condos if they can, or demolish and build something new that is not regulated. Which is what they have been doing, reducing supply of rental units at the low end.

You also have some rent regulated tenants consuming too much real estate (empty nesters) because they don’t want to move and lose the subsidy. And because the subsidy has made these units really cheap. This takes family-sized units off the market and away from families that need them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/28/realestate/renters-upper-west-side.html

I had seen that but didn’t want to post it for fear of triggering you ;).

Yes, we should definitely create 2 million homeless New Yorkers because 1 person might be being unduly enriched. Earlier in the thread I asked anyone to post actual statistics of how many instances are documented rather than just claiming "lots" or "plenty" or "I know personally" (and then not even understanding what's legal). So please... Put up or STFU.

Meanwhile, this is the type of shady landlord shit which has happened
https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2022/02/09/landlord-who-created-fake-tenants-will-repay-tens-of-thousands-but-avoid-fines/

https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2018/12/28/money-for-nothing-landlords-are-accused-of-overcharging-tenants-for-poor-renovation-work-but-is-state-law-to-blame/

https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2020/08/03/olnick-reaches-1-2m-settlement-with-lenox-terrace-tenants-in-rent-overcharge-case/

https://citylimits.org/2022/09/15/hundreds-of-harlem-tenants-can-proceed-with-class-action-suit-over-rent-fraud-claims-judge-rules/

>> I had seen that but didn’t want to post it for fear of triggering you ;)

I don’t think I am the one triggered :)

>> Earlier in the thread I asked anyone to post actual statistics of how many instances [of being unduly enriched] are documented

Define “unduly enriched”? One could argue anyone paying non-market prices is “unduly enriched”.

I guess in this instance this person might meet your definition of an “artist” we need to subsidize or else she wouldn’t be able to live large and over-consume real estate on UWS. She doesn’t meet my definition of an “artist”, or my definition of a person in need of any kind of assistance, being young and educated.

Remember Nora Ephron,
She lived in a huge apartment in the Apthrop and paid $1500. a month. She was horrified when it became deregulated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/opinion/03tierney.html

Definitely seems like someone on this thread really dislikes landlords….

Seems like someone on this thread really dislikes hypocrisy.

And I'm willing to bet that same person is the biggest landlord on this thread by miles.

And it's borderline hysterical how obfuscatory the counter arguments are getting.

@streetsmart thanks for the link to that old article!

Old Streeteasy is back!

So what are the bets for September 26th?
https://jacobin.com/2023/08/supreme-court-landlords-rent-control-harlan-crow-clarence-thomas

A total WAG: The Supremes will decline to take it.

Here's a potential solution for the "fairness" crowd:
Eliminate Rent Stabilization and place a 1 time tax of 100% of the buildings' value (because they will more than double, and we're not looking to give owners a windfall, just be fair, right?). Then NYC can use the billions of dollars collected to build it's own affordable housing. Fair, right?

If rents and values go up, so do the annual real estate taxes. Therefore, I think the city would get its fair share of any windfall. City also already charges taxes on sales of properties.

The city determines what Real Estate tax they want to collect and then uses to total valuation to get the tax rates. They don't need values to go up to collect more taxes.

But also, how long do you think it would take to capture the entire value of a building through Real Estate Tax increases?

If rents go up, they can collect more taxes given the formula for apartments.

If values go up, i think city collects more on sale of properties.

If you argue that you want the city to capture the entire value of the building to preserve status quo, then you are agreeing with the legal argument landlords are making that the city has effectively taken their property already. It is unconstitutional they are claiming.

You continue to argue nonsense. You have no concept of what assessed values are or how taxes are actually calculated.

You are just making up bullshit with your claim of what a taking is constitutionally. Even your heroes on the Supreme Court said Rent Stabilization in principle WASN'T A TAKING. And taxing a newly created windfall isn't a taking either. I wish y'all would come up with some arguments that you weren't just parroting from some publication which you don't really understand or pulling straight out of your asses. This is like watching Jordan Klepper interviews of Trump supporters.

https://www.curbed.com/2023/09/substantial-rehabilitation-landlords-deregulate-trend.html?fbclid=IwAR0bzusMS-XtldvdH6Nk_afwsJfAWckJLfzVTb2x_CDtEtT740zxrDvmtOc

So tenants use the law to take advantage of landlords. And landlords try to find loopholes to do the same, no surprise. A crappy system and in my view, the city would be better off replacing it with something that makes more sense.

And what are you proposing that "makes more sense" and doesn't end up with 2 million Rent Stabilized tenants homeless? Or as long as owners get to maximize profit is that irrelevant?

Public housing and vouchers seem to me like the right idea.

2 million rent stabilized tenants would not become homeless, they could simply move somewhere where the rent is lower. Why do people think they have a god given right to live in the most expensive city in North America for rent THEY can afford? And please stop crying greedy landlord, poor tenant. Most landlords in this country are Mom and Pop type landlords that only own a couple of rental properties and are not so different than you or I. They don’t have an eviction attorney on speed dial and love throwing out little old ladies on the street. Sure, there are terrible, greedy landlords. But there are just as many shady tenants who know exactly how to game the system heavily in their favor. I’m not opposed to more Section 8 vouchers as many landlords have no issue accepting section 8.

The voucher program is far superior because

1) it avoids the lock in that is a bug in the rent control/stabilization program

"A family's housing needs change over time with changes in family size, job locations, and for other reasons. The housing choice voucher program is designed to allow families to move without the loss of housing assistance. Moves are permissible as long as the family notifies the PHA ahead of time, terminates its existing lease within the lease provisions, and finds acceptable alternate housing."
https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8#hcv02

2) It provides direct assistance for a needy family and everyone in the transaction is a willing participant. As opposed to forcing landlords into an arrangement they do not want to be a part of.

The myth of Mom and Pop landlords as a straw man by Big Real Estate in NYC
https://medium.com/justfixorg/examining-the-myth-of-the-mom-and-pop-landlord-6f9f252a09c

And to be clear, real Mom and Pop landlords who own under 6 unit buildings DON'T HAVE ANY RENT STABILIZED TENANTS PERIOD.

911turbo says "let them eat cake." The average Rent Stabilized tenants pays something like $1,500/month. If 1 million apartments were suddenly needed, surely the lower end would get choked. How many of these "cheaper" units exist in NYC? Do a search on this website for rentals under $1,500 do you find? Or now that your Uber privileged Porsche driving ass came to town is it "F*CK the Porsche, je suis arrivée!"

Or perhaps 2 million New Yorkers should just leave town.

Krolik,
Why am I not surprised that your proposal is for one of the most provably failed approaches? I'm pretty sure you saw the other thread where no one can even get assistance finding units with vouchers. Seems like another "F*CK the poors" brush off.

Here is an example of these "poor downtrodden landlords losing money because of HSTPA 2019"
https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2023/09/20/rent-stabilized-landlord-sells-portfolio-at-44-discount/?tpcc=sprout_general&utm_campaign=sprout_general&utm_content=1695237573&utm_medium=The+Real+Deal&utm_source=linkedin

And here is who they really are
https://thetenant.org/barberry-rose-tenants-unleash-rage-on-citys-second-worst-landlord/

Times are tough even for us “let them eat cake” landlords. Sadly I had to trade my Porsche 911 turbo for a lowly BMW. Belt tightening indeed….

Vouchers are not failing country-wide which few people in the other thread specifically noted.

I am not even sure vouchers are failing in NYC. Not sure thats the only conclusion to make when luxury brokers are slow to reply to emails. My general conclusion is that NYC brokers just suck across the board (for the most part).

Try walking in someone elses shoes. Spend one afternoon trying to get an apartment with vouchers. Or do you think Ali is flat out lying about making her best efforts to help someone in Staten Island and couldn't get anywhere?

Although that wasn't even with vouchers involved AFAIK. So it only would have been worse.

Let's put this a different way:
The median household income in NYC is $67,997. This means the median rent needs to be $1,700/month for tenants to pass the usual 40X tests landlords routinely use. Well, well, well... that's the same amounts those "unrealistic" vouchers that no one can find apartments with and so blisteringly low that brokers shouldn't be forced to work with.

Staten Island sucks. I would know, I used to live there and my family still does. Brokers in Staten Island are something else so Ali’s story is no wonder at all. One literally scammed me on my first ever real estate purchase (and got a kickback from the seller). The best way to find a rental on Staten Island is probably craigslist. But, $1700 would go very far on Staten Island. No problem at all finding a 1br.

So, I am very far from Manhattan these day, both physically and mentally. My focus is elsewhere but I still love this little slice of NYC; it gives me both my Manhattan fix and a unique place for me to gather data on a project that is in immediate focus. I have been following @krolik and have been trying to situate her country of origin - Albania is where I would place my bet.
Either way, my personal experience is that discussing public policy with anyone who you don't NEED to discuss it with is a recipe for awful. Someone told me once that Streeteasy got worse when people started meeting IRL; I suspect that is because when you meet someone IRL, you start to count them as a friend and your expectations change. You start discussing things with them that you would not discuss with strangers, and your expectations change such that you can be hurt and disappointed. The fact that @30yrs and @krolik are engaging with each other suggests some mutual respect; I do not think it will not be productive for either to continue the discussion in this forum, but I leave it to each to carry on per their own preferences and sense of what is best for themselves.

I would call this a failure
https://citylimits.org/2022/10/05/nyc-issues-thousands-of-federal-housing-vouchers-but-finding-an-apartment-remains-tough/

“City officials estimate that the voucher program and other rental assistance measures have kept the shelter population, which stands at roughly 47,000 people, from swelling to 71,000. About 4,600 households, accounting for more than 10,000 people, used CityFHEPS vouchers last fiscal year to move out of shelters into apartments, according to DSS data. That’s up from about 3,450 households, with 7,300 individuals, in the 2020 fiscal year.”

That is a lot of actually homeless people that got into apartments.

Might as well be zero when we're actually talking about 2 MILLION.

The 2 million didn’t get their apartment last year though. They mostly got it years ago and now are afraid to move even if their needs for apartment size or location have changed. Its a trap! I have see reports that your odds of getting a stabilized apartment if you apply now is something like 1/400. That is not a reliable enough program for anyone to be able to count on it. More like a lottery ticket. But think of all the wasted hours of all the people filling out those waitlist forms over and over. People’s time is worth not zero.

Voucher program seems to need additional administrative resources, but at least it is a program that is well targeted and where everyone is a willing participant.

Just think, if we get rid of rent regulated units we can have more of this:
https://thesciencesurvey.com/editorial/2023/07/21/empty-mansions-and-millionaire-filled-streets-in-new-york-city/#:~:text=As%20the%20wealthiest%20city%20in,Row%2C%20remains%20half%2Dempty.

Given 772 unsold units, I really don't think we would get more of that. I cannot imagine developers getting a loan right now for one more of these luxury developments.

Market can be irrational for a while or even a long while, but eventually it corrects itself. Just look at blockchain and ESG fads which seemed unstoppable, but now are going away.

Well maybe Hudson Yards can be converted to affordable housing;

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hudson-yards-condos-14aed09e

The tl;dr:
" At the luxury glass-and-limestone tower 35 Hudson Yards, approximately 50% of the units were still unsold as of the last week of June, more than four years after sales launched... Related is slashing prices and offering incentives at the condominium, such as covering buyers’ taxes and closing costs, local agents said. Recorded sales at 35 Hudson as of late June had closed for an average of 30% less than the original prices filed with the New York state Attorney General’s office, and active listings were discounted by up to 50%, the analysis shows. At least four large units at the building have sold for more than 40% off, records show. A four-bedroom apartment recently traded for $8.5 million, about 46% less than its projected asking price of $15.725 million, records show."

Aaron2,
Note that after getting billions in public aid to build Hudson Yards, most of the public benefits were pushed of to Phase II. Phase II was supposed to be finished by 2024. But after the lack of success on Phase I it hasn't been started yet. And now instead of the promised public school, Related wants to build a casino.
https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2023/05/30/relateds-surprise-addition-to-casino-bid-office-space/

>>after the lack of success on Phase I [Phase 2 of Hudson Yards] hasn't been started yet.

Goes to show, you are NOT going to get more empty luxury towers now that evidence piles up that this segment has been overbuilt and luxury units are not what the market needs.

But I have a question for you, 30yrs, does there exist any new development that you do approve of? You don't seem to like small condos in Brooklyn, or new luxury towers in Manhattan/downtown BK, or renovation of Waldorf Astoria, or conversion of the Wall street commercial building, or any of other developments discussed on this board. Is there anyone doing it right in NYC?

"Goes to show, you are NOT going to get more empty luxury towers now that evidence piles up that this segment has been overbuilt and luxury units are not what the market needs."

Considering there are something like 5,000 luxury condos already being built?

Oops, I WAYYYY underestimated.
https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2022/02/25/west-side-neighborhoods-dominate-manhattans-condo-pipeline/

More units being built is good news to alleviate the housing shortage. I am sure they are not going to all be priced like billionaire’s row or hudson yards condos.

Do you like any of the projects? Or did every single developer get it wrong?

https://www.corcoran.com/building/upper-west-side/710203

https://200amsterdam.com/availability

https://96andbroadway.com/availability

https://www.corcoran.com/new-developments/for-sale/chelsea-hudson-yards/515-west-18th-street/3076

https://www.corcoran.com/new-developments/for-sale/upper-east-side/20-east-end-avenue/606

https://www.corcoran.com/new-developments/for-sale/upper-east-side/40-east-end/726

https://www.corcoran.com/building/upper-west-side/710203

@30: Yes, the city was completely played for the patsy in the "we'll build some of the required public amenities later" game. Another exhibit in the "we have no actual interest in addressing housing needs in NYC but we'll make some public noises to snooker the voters" case against a rather long string of elected and appointed city officials (including the current cohort, and their conspirators in Albany). I just want to know if they're getting cash, gold bars, or deeds to units -- it would at least show that they're only corrupt, and not also incompetent.

Aaron2,
Check out the currently slow moving scam of turning Willets Point - once the pantheon of small businesses with ZERO government assistance - into the biggest "government takes and gives to billionaires" boondoggle.

Wasn't today the day that the Supreme Court was supposed to decide if they were going to hear the case against HSTPA 2019?

I cannot find any reference to a decision. Hopefully soon we will know.

Even Washington Post thinks regulations have gone too far:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/22/new-york-rent-laws-unconstitutional/

NY politician contributing to NYC housing shortage by keeping a RS Manhattan apartment that he says he does not live in:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/nyregion/lester-chang-residency-assembly.html

30yrs, assume all those links are to developments you do NOT like. Are there any developments you do like? And if no, why do you think that is?

If you want to complain about politicians and Rent Stabilized tabilized apartments, this is a better example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11rangel.html

Wait, 30yrs, did you switch side now? lol

How did the story end? Any updates since 2008?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/politics/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenges-to-new-yorks-rent-stabilization-laws/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/10/realestate/rent-stabilized-apartment-rules.html?unlocked_article_code=1.DE4.6Z8q.XEjkmjs82RMx&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Yes, this ONE INSTANCE out of millions of rent stabilized/controlled units proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the entire system needs to be dismantled.

Lots of people in the comments under the article note that they know of similar cases of people not living in the city and hoarding the apartments. Or empty nesters living in a family size unit when because it ends up cheaper to over consume space than to move.

Considering there is no income qualification, why do you think this is a good system for distributing rent subsidies?

We have gone through this before. I have made my position clear. It's interesting that your only counter argument is misstating my position because you don't have any real logical one.

It's just one example. And if the landlord cared, he could do his investigation, and bring a case.

> empty nesters living in a family size unit when because it ends up cheaper to over consume space than to move.

It is inefficient use of the space, but nothing wrong with this

Another inefficient use of the space is the owner still holding on the apartment with more space than they needed when they retired in their apartment. For practical and economic reasons, staying in the big apartment is a better option than moving to a smaller apartment. When moving to a smaller apartment, with transaction cost, renovation, a much higher mortgage interest rate, possibly higher maintenance, so the moving is not necessarily going to decrease the cost.

I think rent stabilization doesn't mean a lot to wealthy people. For my parents it meant a lot, it meant keeping the family in the same place until they left the nest. Without fear of being evicted or astronomical jumps in the rent. I can say the same thing about a lot of my friends in the city in the '70s and '80s. It kept neighborhoods whole, each neighborhood built a certain character. And again gave working class families stability. I'm not sure what cities would be like with zero rent controls? I wonder if there's a way to model that out??

No one who lived in alphabet City in the '70s or '80s ever imagined in their wildest dreams what it would become. Same goes for Soho and Tribeca. But I guess that's progress, urban evolution.

Keith,

I find it interesting that on one side we have Nada and a few others here being proponents of free market renting in NYC as it is cheaper than buying and on the other end you talking about fear of eviction for renters. How do you reconcile that?

Market pricing can't really maintain the character of the neighborhoods - status quo. In the absense of rent stabilization, rent stabilized people will just move to cheaper areas in the city as the market rent people do (who likely have made a bundle by investing in SPX rather than buying) and a benefit of that may be improvements in cheaper and less desirable areas, where apartments sell for far less than replacement value, and less price appreciation in the areas with rent stabilized apartments which would have become free market. In fact, in some less desirable areas, market price is more or less the same as market rent. So why can rent stabilized beneficiaries in prime area move to those areas. Nadas and Georges are willing to move.

" So why can't rent stabilized beneficiaries in prime area move to those areas. "

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote closely enough. I'm talking about working class people, not sure how much these paycheck to paycheck folks are putting in spx. Of course (most)wealthy renters don't care about rent stabilization, but school teachers, firemen, police officers, back office workers,DM, restaurant workers, people in the theater etc. Might think a bit more about it. I like the word stabilization because ideally a home should be a stable environment for a family, that will have intrinsic ties to the neighborhood through friendships and schools etc.

Rent stabilization is for working class people, so they can enjoy stability as well as contribute to the continuity of a neighborhood. But perhaps these are antiquated ideas that no longer apply to New York City. Though I suspect when you go a little deeper into the boroughs, rent, stabilization is still an important fact of life. And maybe that's part of the problem, it's important in these neighborhoods, but I guess you can't have separate guidelines based on the desirability of the particular location of a building. I'm just still connected with people for whom this is important. And of course rent stabilization doesn't cover the subletting of co-ops in condominiums. I also believe if you're a property owner who bought a building with regulated apartments, you went into this with eyes wide open, you knew what you were getting.

So market rent people don't deserve stability? Or owners don't deserve stability from the increase in taxes and maintenance (which can be far more than increase in stabilized rents) in NYC?

I think all owners would like very much for their property taxes and union wages in their building to be capped at the increase in rent stabilized rents. Do you see where I am going with this?

Sorry forgot to mention insurance rate cap for owners.