Do you want to meet a lawyer? No, not to go on a date. To help you with housing issues!
Starting this week, Helen Rosenthal, the Urban Justice Center and Goddard Riverside are hosting housing clinics at Goddard Riverside, 593 Columbus Avenue (between 88th and 89th). They will explain issues like rent stabilization, and there will be time afterward to meet with lawyers. See the full schedule below:
Top photo by Amy Aglar.
Do you want to meet a lawyer? No, not to go on a date. To help you with housing issues!
Starting this week, Helen Rosenthal, the Urban Justice Center and Goddard Riverside are hosting housing clinics at Goddard Riverside, 593 Columbus Avenue (between 88th and 89th). They will explain issues like rent stabilization, and there will be time afterward to meet with lawyers. See the full schedule below:
Top photo by Amy Aglar.
We are aware that the reply button on the comment form is broken on mobile (it's ok on desktop) and we are working on fixing it ASAP! Thanks for your patience!
Look at the building in this picture.
Look at how dingy and decrepit it is.
This is the result of rent control and rent stabilization.
Because of these archaic laws landlords have no incentive – or simply don’t have the cash – to properly maintain their buildings. The result is ugly buildings like this one.
In fact, this building should have been torn down years ago and a modern and efficient building could have replaced it – therefore providing more housing and lowering prices.
Unfortunately, the building is likely filled with regulated tenants paying next to nothing in rent. These people are protected and this is why the building is still standing.
This building is an eyesore and likely unsafe. This impacts the quality of life of all New Yorkers.
This is NYC liberalism at its best.
‘Ackshooley’, that building is NOT SO TERRIBLE!
It’s classic older New York City, the sort of place of which so many ‘Authenticos’ and ‘Nostalgialistas’ mourn the passing.
It has very interesting architectural details NOT possible in today’s glass/aluminum and a seemingly well-maintained cherry-red (!) fire escape, also classic NYC.
Te beautiful thing about NYC is the wonderful mashup of architectural styles, making for a never-ending visual treat.
Why can’t we have BOTH old AND new?
“Unfortunately, the building is likely filled with regulated tenants paying next to nothing in rent. These people are protected and this is why the building is still standing.”
– Sherman
Sounds like someone wants to get rid of those old people.
It’s a fairy tail that rent controlled/stabilized apartments are filled with poor old people.
However, you can continue to believe these fantasies if this makes you happy.
Your fairy tale (sic) is that rent regulation artificially inflates the rental market. Boston and San Francisco have both proven the fallacy of this tired old saw (When rent regulation was weakened or abolished, rents rose across the board to New York levels of unaffordability.)
It’s pure Fantasyland to think that dissolving the Rent Laws could possibly contribute to alleviating nyc’s housing shortage or that the “free market”, when applied to housing, could ease the affordability crisis. Ya think all those shiny new buildings house middle class New Yorkers?
Take a look at the age of this building and tell me that you believe that it is filled with young people in rent-regulated apartments.
I’m in a residential building with a mix of rent regulated and market-rate tenants. We’re market rate (1BR, $2950). The rent regulated tenants include one older couple that has been in the building since the 80s. The rest are two-income couples in their 40-50s enjoying lower rents (although not the apocryphal $450 rents) and weekend homes they can afford with all the money they save.
I say older tenants, then native New Yorkers get dibs on rent regulated apartments.
I love old NYC buildings but this one is grimy and gross and likely unsafe.
I hate to think about what it looks like inside.
The real estate industry contingent on this blog speaks again.
um, it just looks like they tried to put a led Zepplin style filter onto a picture of an NYC building a la Physical Graffiti. It’s pretty clearly a filter.
“When rent regulation was abolished rents rose across the board to New York levels of unaffordability”.
You sound quite a bit like Yogi Berra when he said “Nobody eats there anymore. It’s too crowded”.
How can SF and Boston be “unaffordable” if millions of people live in these two cities?
The same way they do in New York – by paying more than 1/3 of their income in rent.
It’s called being “rent-burdened”.
Look it up in your Econ 101 textbook.
Nobody is “rent-burdened” if they choose to pay these rents.
Furthermore, in the case of NYC its a myth that rent is unaffordable. If you can’t afford the UWS there are still plenty of cheap rents available in Queens, SI, Brooklyn and The Bronx.
Why should I be subsidizing greedy deadbeats like you who chose to live in an area they can’t afford?
it’s a myth that market rate tenants “subsidize” rent stabilized tenants. if all of the rent stabilized apartments disappeared overnight, the rent of the market rate tenants would not go down. thus no subsidy, at least from the market rate tenants.
we have actually done an economics experiment on this point on the UWS. thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of rent stabilized apts have moved to market rate in the last decade on the UWS aline. but market rate rents did not go down. instead, they continue to skyrocket. prices are demand driven.
the commenter who talked about how landlords with rent stabilized tenants can’t put improvements into the buildings doesn’t understand the NYC rent laws. MCIs (Major Capital Improvements) can be passed along to rent stabilized tenants and result in permanent rent increases. they are a major source of profit for landlords.
rent stabilized buildings are very profitable for landlords in general, as long as they are not over-mortgaged. data is available on the rent guidelines board web site that shows this.
continued from above.
Sherman said:
“There’s not an economist on the planet who would argue that rent regulation is a good or fair system. Even Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, hardly a right winger, wrote an article in the NY Times a few years back blasting NYC’s rent regulation laws.”
There are indeed economists who argue for various forms of rent regulation in periods of extreme shortage, or under extreme gentrification. The column you refer to from Paul Krugman, which pro-landlord types like to quote, is actually from 2000. if that qualifies in your mind as “a few years back”, i guess that is ok. I wonder if you support other Krugman positions that go against the “free market”?
Rent regulation is not a PERFECT system but getting rid of it in NYC would only make the issue of affordability and gentrification worse.
sherman says:
“I personally know of very wealthy people who pay next to nothing in rent while other people artificially pay bloated rents due to these regulated apartments being off the market, thus creating artificial shortages.How is this fair or efficient?”
The overall demographic of rent regulated tenants is, not surprisingly, older and poorer than market rate tenants. i’m sure you can find wealthy people who live in rent regulated apartments, but in general that is not the case.
the housing shortage in NYC is a much more complicated phenomena and is not created nor even to any degree seriously enhanced by so-called wealthy people living in rent regulated apartments.
In essence, you are complaining about Person A getting a better price than person B. does this also apply to wealthy people who bought their house or apt decades ago and thus have very low mortgages?
and if you want to complain about housing subsidies, please begin with by far the largest housing subsidy in the US: the mortgage interest deduction.
ending rent regulation in NYC would indeed end the housing crisis by producing hundreds of thousands of new units — if it was accompanied by the following steps: 1) end all zoning laws; 2) end protections for tenants so that they can be evicted when owners want to tear down a building and build a new one; 3) make costs of construction much cheaper by ending all sorts of building regulations.
if you’re not willing to take these steps (and no sane person would be), ending rent regulation only has the effect of throwing hundreds of thousands of mostly older and poorer people out of their apartments. i can guarantee you Paul Krugman does not support that step.
Sherman, I’m glad i could amuse you, but you are not accurate with your so-called facts and various assertions.
Sherman said:
“The Rent Guidelines is essentially a so-called “pro-tenant” group. Any “studies” put out by them about how great rent-regulation is isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”
Please, familiarize yourself with how the NYC rent stabilization system works.
The NYC Rent Guidelines Board is the official body that sets rent increases for rent-stabilized apartments in NYC. It has tenant reps and landlord reps in equal quantities. all reps are appointed by the Mayor. while under De Blasio it has been more friendly to tenants, under Bloomberg it was more friendly to landlords.
in any case, it issues annual comprehensive reports on the economic condition of all rent stabilized buildings and has been doing so for decades. All reports are online. they are based on tax filings and I am not aware of anyone questioning their accuracy.
Thanks for the post. I needed a good laugh.
The Rent Guidelines is essentially a so-called “pro-tenant” group. Any “studies” put out by them about how great rent-regulation is isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
There’s not an economist on the planet who would argue that rent regulation is a good or fair system. Even Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, hardly a right winger, wrote an article in the NY Times a few years back blasting NYC’s rent regulation laws.
I personally know of very wealthy people who pay next to nothing in rent while other people artificially pay bloated rents due to these regulated apartments being off the market, thus creating artificial shortages.
How is this fair or efficient?
Look at the building in this picture.
Look at how dingy and decrepit it is.
This is the result of rent control and rent stabilization.
Because of these archaic laws landlords have no incentive – or simply don’t have the cash – to properly maintain their buildings. The result is ugly buildings like this one.
In fact, this building should have been torn down years ago and a modern and efficient building could have replaced it – therefore providing more housing and lowering prices.
Unfortunately, the building is likely filled with regulated tenants paying next to nothing in rent. These people are protected and this is why the building is still standing.
This building is an eyesore and likely unsafe. This impacts the quality of life of all New Yorkers.
This is NYC liberalism at its best.
‘Ackshooley’, that building is NOT SO TERRIBLE!
It’s classic older New York City, the sort of place of which so many ‘Authenticos’ and ‘Nostalgialistas’ mourn the passing.
It has very interesting architectural details NOT possible in today’s glass/aluminum and a seemingly well-maintained cherry-red (!) fire escape, also classic NYC.
Te beautiful thing about NYC is the wonderful mashup of architectural styles, making for a never-ending visual treat.
Why can’t we have BOTH old AND new?
“Unfortunately, the building is likely filled with regulated tenants paying next to nothing in rent. These people are protected and this is why the building is still standing.”
– Sherman
Sounds like someone wants to get rid of those old people.
It’s a fairy tail that rent controlled/stabilized apartments are filled with poor old people.
However, you can continue to believe these fantasies if this makes you happy.
Your fairy tale (sic) is that rent regulation artificially inflates the rental market. Boston and San Francisco have both proven the fallacy of this tired old saw (When rent regulation was weakened or abolished, rents rose across the board to New York levels of unaffordability.)
It’s pure Fantasyland to think that dissolving the Rent Laws could possibly contribute to alleviating nyc’s housing shortage or that the “free market”, when applied to housing, could ease the affordability crisis. Ya think all those shiny new buildings house middle class New Yorkers?
Take a look at the age of this building and tell me that you believe that it is filled with young people in rent-regulated apartments.
I’m in a residential building with a mix of rent regulated and market-rate tenants. We’re market rate (1BR, $2950). The rent regulated tenants include one older couple that has been in the building since the 80s. The rest are two-income couples in their 40-50s enjoying lower rents (although not the apocryphal $450 rents) and weekend homes they can afford with all the money they save.
I say older tenants, then native New Yorkers get dibs on rent regulated apartments.
I love old NYC buildings but this one is grimy and gross and likely unsafe.
I hate to think about what it looks like inside.
The real estate industry contingent on this blog speaks again.
um, it just looks like they tried to put a led Zepplin style filter onto a picture of an NYC building a la Physical Graffiti. It’s pretty clearly a filter.
“When rent regulation was abolished rents rose across the board to New York levels of unaffordability”.
You sound quite a bit like Yogi Berra when he said “Nobody eats there anymore. It’s too crowded”.
How can SF and Boston be “unaffordable” if millions of people live in these two cities?
The same way they do in New York – by paying more than 1/3 of their income in rent.
It’s called being “rent-burdened”.
Look it up in your Econ 101 textbook.
Nobody is “rent-burdened” if they choose to pay these rents.
Furthermore, in the case of NYC its a myth that rent is unaffordable. If you can’t afford the UWS there are still plenty of cheap rents available in Queens, SI, Brooklyn and The Bronx.
Why should I be subsidizing greedy deadbeats like you who chose to live in an area they can’t afford?
it’s a myth that market rate tenants “subsidize” rent stabilized tenants. if all of the rent stabilized apartments disappeared overnight, the rent of the market rate tenants would not go down. thus no subsidy, at least from the market rate tenants.
we have actually done an economics experiment on this point on the UWS. thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of rent stabilized apts have moved to market rate in the last decade on the UWS aline. but market rate rents did not go down. instead, they continue to skyrocket. prices are demand driven.
the commenter who talked about how landlords with rent stabilized tenants can’t put improvements into the buildings doesn’t understand the NYC rent laws. MCIs (Major Capital Improvements) can be passed along to rent stabilized tenants and result in permanent rent increases. they are a major source of profit for landlords.
rent stabilized buildings are very profitable for landlords in general, as long as they are not over-mortgaged. data is available on the rent guidelines board web site that shows this.
continued from above.
Sherman said:
“There’s not an economist on the planet who would argue that rent regulation is a good or fair system. Even Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, hardly a right winger, wrote an article in the NY Times a few years back blasting NYC’s rent regulation laws.”
There are indeed economists who argue for various forms of rent regulation in periods of extreme shortage, or under extreme gentrification. The column you refer to from Paul Krugman, which pro-landlord types like to quote, is actually from 2000. if that qualifies in your mind as “a few years back”, i guess that is ok. I wonder if you support other Krugman positions that go against the “free market”?
Rent regulation is not a PERFECT system but getting rid of it in NYC would only make the issue of affordability and gentrification worse.
sherman says:
“I personally know of very wealthy people who pay next to nothing in rent while other people artificially pay bloated rents due to these regulated apartments being off the market, thus creating artificial shortages.How is this fair or efficient?”
The overall demographic of rent regulated tenants is, not surprisingly, older and poorer than market rate tenants. i’m sure you can find wealthy people who live in rent regulated apartments, but in general that is not the case.
the housing shortage in NYC is a much more complicated phenomena and is not created nor even to any degree seriously enhanced by so-called wealthy people living in rent regulated apartments.
In essence, you are complaining about Person A getting a better price than person B. does this also apply to wealthy people who bought their house or apt decades ago and thus have very low mortgages?
and if you want to complain about housing subsidies, please begin with by far the largest housing subsidy in the US: the mortgage interest deduction.
ending rent regulation in NYC would indeed end the housing crisis by producing hundreds of thousands of new units — if it was accompanied by the following steps: 1) end all zoning laws; 2) end protections for tenants so that they can be evicted when owners want to tear down a building and build a new one; 3) make costs of construction much cheaper by ending all sorts of building regulations.
if you’re not willing to take these steps (and no sane person would be), ending rent regulation only has the effect of throwing hundreds of thousands of mostly older and poorer people out of their apartments. i can guarantee you Paul Krugman does not support that step.
Sherman, I’m glad i could amuse you, but you are not accurate with your so-called facts and various assertions.
Sherman said:
“The Rent Guidelines is essentially a so-called “pro-tenant” group. Any “studies” put out by them about how great rent-regulation is isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”
Please, familiarize yourself with how the NYC rent stabilization system works.
The NYC Rent Guidelines Board is the official body that sets rent increases for rent-stabilized apartments in NYC. It has tenant reps and landlord reps in equal quantities. all reps are appointed by the Mayor. while under De Blasio it has been more friendly to tenants, under Bloomberg it was more friendly to landlords.
in any case, it issues annual comprehensive reports on the economic condition of all rent stabilized buildings and has been doing so for decades. All reports are online. they are based on tax filings and I am not aware of anyone questioning their accuracy.
https://www.nycrgb.org/
Thanks for the post. I needed a good laugh.
The Rent Guidelines is essentially a so-called “pro-tenant” group. Any “studies” put out by them about how great rent-regulation is isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
There’s not an economist on the planet who would argue that rent regulation is a good or fair system. Even Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, hardly a right winger, wrote an article in the NY Times a few years back blasting NYC’s rent regulation laws.
I personally know of very wealthy people who pay next to nothing in rent while other people artificially pay bloated rents due to these regulated apartments being off the market, thus creating artificial shortages.
How is this fair or efficient?