This discussion started in another thread, but I think it may be important and interesting enough to merit its own. Here are the last two comments from "Another death knell for sellers" to start this thread off: briguynyc about 1 hour ago There are really no compelling economic justifications to keep rent control. Only a bunch of emotional appeals about the suffering it would cause if it was... [more]
This discussion started in another thread, but I think it may be important and interesting enough to merit its own. Here are the last two comments from "Another death knell for sellers" to start this thread off:
briguynyc
about 1 hour ago
There are really no compelling economic justifications to keep rent control. Only a bunch of emotional appeals about the suffering it would cause if it was removed. When rent controls were abolished in Boston by a statewide ballot, only 7% of residents applied for hardship protections. That is because the vast majority of the rent control renters could afford market rents. This is very bad public policy.
briguynyc
about 1 hour ago
The real problem is that the benefits of rent control do not go to those in need. At least the system does not in any way attempt to determine the if the renter meets any justifiable economic criteria. So trying to connect the dot between the economic status of a renter and rent control is patently false. It is an unjust distribution of an economic benefit to people and not a single control in the system to ensure that the benefit goes to someone in need. It drives up the rent of the free market in turn and also reduces the overall quality of housing in NYC.
[less]
Response by nycjunior1
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 192
Member since: Dec 2008
You gain social cohesion in that you have continuity in families and community members putting down roots. You have less transients cycling through. You have great economic and social diversity in who is living in a neighborhood (which I think is a supreme value, and one of the main reasons to live in ny.)
Don't kid yourselves. While economic logic would lead you to conclude that without rent control, owners would lower the average price of a rental - in fact any honest new yorker knows that what would actually happen is that all of the apts would rise to the highest level the owner could charge. That is how prices are set. Owners aren't going to charge less if rent control ends, they will maximize profits. Rent control actually probably keeps prices in the city lower than it would be without it because it lowers competition among renters (which otherwise would drive rents up) and it gives rents slightly more bargaining power than if it did not exist.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 407PAS
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 1289
Member since: Sep 2008
So, a sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of apartments on the market, increasing the supply, is not going to have any downward effect on prices? Right.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nycjunior1
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 192
Member since: Dec 2008
No. It won't. Because demand far outstrips supply in nyc and then you will still have to have a place to live for all the former rent controlled tenants.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 407PAS
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 1289
Member since: Sep 2008
Ah good, then demand on the units for sale in the marketplace should also prop up their prices. Whew, nice to hear.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by KeithBurkhardt
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 2985
Member since: Aug 2008
First let's be real, "hundreds of thousands" of apartments won't all come on the market at once under anyone's plan,lol.
Like I said plenty of RS apartments up here...come on up great view of Yankee stadium(s).
Also all the 80/20 buildings are RS most legal base rents far exceed market, hence the "preferential rent" rider. Slowly but surely apartments are being destabilized as tenants move out or pass away.So there is a mechanism in place already. None of this was a problem until all you yuppies decided you wanted to live in the city instead of the burbs :)
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 407PAS
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 1289
Member since: Sep 2008
Why would I ever want to look at Yankee Stadium? Ah, the good old days in New York, when crime was high and prices were low. Let's bring back crime! Blame it on the yuppies, and I don't consider myself to be one, but at least the "yuppies" have made New York a place decent to live in, compared to the way it used to be. I figure the term yuppie went out of fashion ten years ago.
At least hundreds of thousands of apartments would come on to the market over time, unlike the current system where hundreds of thousands of apartments will never come on the market.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by briguynyc
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 47
Member since: Sep 2006
theburkhardtgroup if there is such a glut of supply of these apartments at the rent control price, what in the world makes you think that raising the rent will suddenly make these apartments come off the market. Prices are not set by the landlords exclusively. If prices are too high then people will not rent them.
I am not sure why this has to devolve into class warfare. I am arguing that rents overall will decline. If we rapidly deregulate rs apartments excluding demonstrable hardship many apartments (1M) will come into the supply. If you think a rs apartment will suddenly jump in price without any corresponding increase in the quality of the apartment then I think we could never agree.
My point is that there are much better policy options to pursue to drive towards the goals stated by everyone here. And I don't think that preserving someone else's sense of historic new york ought to be public policy. Times change and cities change and NYC should be the place that most embraces that change.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by KeithBurkhardt
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 2985
Member since: Aug 2008
The real estate market is changing again perhaps if it keeps changing in the current direction discussions about RS apartments will be moot. I never said there was a glut just pointing out a fact about current RS buildings. There are actually 834,000 RS apartments in the city of NY not just Manhattan. In 2008 there was a 4% decrease in RS apartments.
It's also hard to have a meaningful discussion about this since we are lacking actual stats on the tenants occupying RS apartments. I believe the vast majority would fall into a category that would give them protection in the event of "rapid destabilisation".Just my opinion though.
407pas I don't know how long you have lived here, I have since 1981. My ex wife grew up here and her parents have lived here (Village,Chelsea) since the 1950's. I visited family here my entire life. I can tell you first hand that Downtown was not spit shined like it is today, but they were fun, vibrant neighborhoods. The yuppies reference was meant in jest, guess it went over your head?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 407PAS
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 1289
Member since: Sep 2008
I've been here three months, where is my killer deal on a rent stabilized apartment? Perhaps it takes outsiders to tell New Yorkers how screwed up their real estate system is, not that New Yorkers will ever listen. They think they have a good thing going and hope to hit the lottery some day, those who haven't hit the lottery already.
Wow, those RS numbers are sure dropping fast. Maybe in twenty five years you'll get this straightened out. Nah, you'll pass some more exemptions to keep the thing going forever.
I am glad that I came here with an owner's mentality and not a renter's mentality. The difference is night and day. So far, your RS system works to keep up prices on owned units.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 407PAS
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 1289
Member since: Sep 2008
My comment on yuppies was meant in seriousness. While you may belittle people who have some money, even in jest, it is those people who paid to clean up and repair the buildings. Your rent stabilized system does not cover the costs and lets buildings fall down.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by alanhart
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 12397
Member since: Feb 2007
Food for thought: of Forbes' Top Ten "World's Priciest Cities To Own A Home", only NYC has rent regulations.
hmmmmm ... so pricey real estate, expensive housing, and poor housing affordability ratios exist even WITHOUT rent regulations? The magic hand of the market hasn't solved all problems in all of those other cities? Very odd. It's not supposed to be that way -- ask any right-wing so-called "conservative" (as if!) ideologue.
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
You gain social cohesion in that you have continuity in families and community members putting down roots. You have less transients cycling through. You have great economic and social diversity in who is living in a neighborhood (which I think is a supreme value, and one of the main reasons to live in ny.)
Don't kid yourselves. While economic logic would lead you to conclude that without rent control, owners would lower the average price of a rental - in fact any honest new yorker knows that what would actually happen is that all of the apts would rise to the highest level the owner could charge. That is how prices are set. Owners aren't going to charge less if rent control ends, they will maximize profits. Rent control actually probably keeps prices in the city lower than it would be without it because it lowers competition among renters (which otherwise would drive rents up) and it gives rents slightly more bargaining power than if it did not exist.
So, a sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of apartments on the market, increasing the supply, is not going to have any downward effect on prices? Right.
No. It won't. Because demand far outstrips supply in nyc and then you will still have to have a place to live for all the former rent controlled tenants.
Ah good, then demand on the units for sale in the marketplace should also prop up their prices. Whew, nice to hear.
First let's be real, "hundreds of thousands" of apartments won't all come on the market at once under anyone's plan,lol.
Like I said plenty of RS apartments up here...come on up great view of Yankee stadium(s).
Also all the 80/20 buildings are RS most legal base rents far exceed market, hence the "preferential rent" rider. Slowly but surely apartments are being destabilized as tenants move out or pass away.So there is a mechanism in place already. None of this was a problem until all you yuppies decided you wanted to live in the city instead of the burbs :)
Why would I ever want to look at Yankee Stadium? Ah, the good old days in New York, when crime was high and prices were low. Let's bring back crime! Blame it on the yuppies, and I don't consider myself to be one, but at least the "yuppies" have made New York a place decent to live in, compared to the way it used to be. I figure the term yuppie went out of fashion ten years ago.
At least hundreds of thousands of apartments would come on to the market over time, unlike the current system where hundreds of thousands of apartments will never come on the market.
theburkhardtgroup if there is such a glut of supply of these apartments at the rent control price, what in the world makes you think that raising the rent will suddenly make these apartments come off the market. Prices are not set by the landlords exclusively. If prices are too high then people will not rent them.
I am not sure why this has to devolve into class warfare. I am arguing that rents overall will decline. If we rapidly deregulate rs apartments excluding demonstrable hardship many apartments (1M) will come into the supply. If you think a rs apartment will suddenly jump in price without any corresponding increase in the quality of the apartment then I think we could never agree.
My point is that there are much better policy options to pursue to drive towards the goals stated by everyone here. And I don't think that preserving someone else's sense of historic new york ought to be public policy. Times change and cities change and NYC should be the place that most embraces that change.
The real estate market is changing again perhaps if it keeps changing in the current direction discussions about RS apartments will be moot. I never said there was a glut just pointing out a fact about current RS buildings. There are actually 834,000 RS apartments in the city of NY not just Manhattan. In 2008 there was a 4% decrease in RS apartments.
It's also hard to have a meaningful discussion about this since we are lacking actual stats on the tenants occupying RS apartments. I believe the vast majority would fall into a category that would give them protection in the event of "rapid destabilisation".Just my opinion though.
407pas I don't know how long you have lived here, I have since 1981. My ex wife grew up here and her parents have lived here (Village,Chelsea) since the 1950's. I visited family here my entire life. I can tell you first hand that Downtown was not spit shined like it is today, but they were fun, vibrant neighborhoods. The yuppies reference was meant in jest, guess it went over your head?
I've been here three months, where is my killer deal on a rent stabilized apartment? Perhaps it takes outsiders to tell New Yorkers how screwed up their real estate system is, not that New Yorkers will ever listen. They think they have a good thing going and hope to hit the lottery some day, those who haven't hit the lottery already.
Wow, those RS numbers are sure dropping fast. Maybe in twenty five years you'll get this straightened out. Nah, you'll pass some more exemptions to keep the thing going forever.
I am glad that I came here with an owner's mentality and not a renter's mentality. The difference is night and day. So far, your RS system works to keep up prices on owned units.
My comment on yuppies was meant in seriousness. While you may belittle people who have some money, even in jest, it is those people who paid to clean up and repair the buildings. Your rent stabilized system does not cover the costs and lets buildings fall down.
Food for thought: of Forbes' Top Ten "World's Priciest Cities To Own A Home", only NYC has rent regulations.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/09/cities-top-expensive-lifestyle-real-estate_0209_cities.html
Things that make you go hmmmmm
hmmmmm ... so pricey real estate, expensive housing, and poor housing affordability ratios exist even WITHOUT rent regulations? The magic hand of the market hasn't solved all problems in all of those other cities? Very odd. It's not supposed to be that way -- ask any right-wing so-called "conservative" (as if!) ideologue.