Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York's Rent Regulation Fight

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 52 posts

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#11

Post by endtime »

colinbartlett wrote: post #4
exelius wrote: post #2

This is the problem with housing subsidies: they very often go to those who don't need them. In New York, your choice of apartment is primarily based on location -- anything that's not in the >$1 million range is pretty similar. So if you're looking at two apartments near your work and the rent stabilized one is $1200/mo and the other is $3000/mo, you try to get the $1200/mo one even if you could afford the $3000/mo…

Not necessarily disagreeing with you. But the practical meaning of that is that, in the case of New York, this means the entire island of Manhattan becomes a playground for the wealthy and the people who keep that playground humming are relegated to the outer boroughs.

Living in Manhattan is not a right. I don't see anything wrong with a shorter commute being more expensive.

I would very happily pay more for services that get more expensive because workers demand higher wages for their longer commutes (etc.), in exchange for the drop in market-rate rent (which I pay) that would come from throwing out rent regulation.

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#12

Post by jellicle »

dantheman wrote: post #5
jellicle wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The type of "price controls" that you are railing against do not exist in New York City and to the best of my knowledge have never existed there. Maybe during World War II.

Here you go: http://www.nycrgb.org/html/resources/faq/rentstab.html

Urgh, when I saw the downvotes I figured it would be people who knew nothing about NYC's rent laws except had heard the phrase "rent stabilized" and decided for themselves what it meant. And I was right.

Every vacant apartment in the city can be rented by the landlord at market rates. The price controls complained of by the top commenter do not exist. There is no such thing as a law saying "This vacant apartment? You can only charge $1000 for it, even though it would normally rent for $3000."

Is that clear? Or would you rather just downvote, despite not knowing anything about the city's rent laws?

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#13

Post by onion2k »

nine_k wrote: post #6
colinbartlett wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you. But the practical meaning of that is that, in the case of New York, this means the entire island of Manhattan becomes a playground for the wealthy and the people who keep that playground humming are relegated to the outer boroughs.

Entire Manhattan, including 200th streets? I can imagine that areas like this already exist, e.g. in most lower Manhattan and upper west side. Did it result in anything particularly bad, or at least measurably bad? (Disclaimer: I live in Brooklyn and work on Manhattan; my commute is still better than in most other places I lived.)

Did it result in anything particularly bad, or at least measurably bad?

I imagine that depends on the timescale you're looking at. A similar thing has happened in London over the past 30 years - the upshot is that schools and hospitals are now finding it practically impossible to recruit teachers and nurses in the city because they can't afford to live within a commutable distance. That's quite bad.

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#14

Post by bradleyjg »

exelius wrote: post #10
nine_k wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entire Manhattan, including 200th streets? I can imagine that areas like this already exist, e.g. in most lower Manhattan and upper west side. Did it result in anything particularly bad, or at least measurably bad? (Disclaimer: I live in Brooklyn and work on Manhattan; my commute is still better than in most other places I lived.)

Eventually, yeah. There is a finite supply of land on Manhattan, and demand from foreign buyers is growing. Downtown and midtown are already saturated, so the billion dollar condo buildings of 2040 will need to be built somewhere.

I don't see any particular reason that Inwood will be more desirable in 2040 than Brooklyn Heights. Being physically on the island of Manhattan just isn't that big a deal. What matters in the long run seems to be commuting time and to a lesser extent zoning and projects.

Looking at this heat map: http://project.wnyc.org/transit-time/#40.75805,-73.98571,12,...

I'd be bullish on Sunnyside / western Woodside.

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#15

Post by evanpw »

jellicle wrote: post #12
dantheman wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: http://www.nycrgb.org/html/resources/faq/rentstab.html

Urgh, when I saw the downvotes I figured it would be people who knew nothing about NYC's rent laws except had heard the phrase "rent stabilized" and decided for themselves what it meant. And I was right. Every vacant apartment in the city can be rented by the landlord at market rates. The price controls complained of by the top commenter do not exist. There is no such thing as a law saying "This vacant apartment? You…

This seems to explain the rules determining the rent you can charge for a vacant rent-stabilized apartment: http://www.nycrgb.org/html/guidelines/vacancy.html. Am I misunderstanding this page?

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#16

Post by bradleyjg »

jellicle wrote: post #12
dantheman wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: http://www.nycrgb.org/html/resources/faq/rentstab.html

Urgh, when I saw the downvotes I figured it would be people who knew nothing about NYC's rent laws except had heard the phrase "rent stabilized" and decided for themselves what it meant. And I was right. Every vacant apartment in the city can be rented by the landlord at market rates. The price controls complained of by the top commenter do not exist. There is no such thing as a law saying "This vacant apartment? You…

That's simply not true. Vacancy decontrol for a rent stabilized apartment only kicks in if the legal rent for an apartment has reached $2500. So it is very much the case that a vacant apartment can be subject to rent stabilization and cannot be rented for whatever the market will bear.

See this page for worked examples: http://www.nycrgb.org/html/guidelines/vacancy.html

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#17

Post by michaeltoth »

exelius wrote: post #8
colinbartlett wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you. But the practical meaning of that is that, in the case of New York, this means the entire island of Manhattan becomes a playground for the wealthy and the people who keep that playground humming are relegated to the outer boroughs.

That's kind of the entire point. The wealthy who use Manhattan as their playground today are just getting the public to subsidize housing for the people who keep their playground humming. Manhattan is already far too expensive; I have a friend who commutes daily to Manhattan from Philadelphia because rents are 25% of what they are in Manhattan. It's only 90 minutes to Penn Station on the train, which is about the sa…

Except a ride from Brooklyn or Queens is $2.75 and a ride from Philadelphia is around $80 on Amtrak. Also, you're assuming that he lives directly above 30th Street Station and works directly above Penn Station, otherwise the travel time is likely to be over 2 hours.

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#18

Post by akgerber »

jellicle wrote: post #12
dantheman wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: http://www.nycrgb.org/html/resources/faq/rentstab.html

Urgh, when I saw the downvotes I figured it would be people who knew nothing about NYC's rent laws except had heard the phrase "rent stabilized" and decided for themselves what it meant. And I was right. Every vacant apartment in the city can be rented by the landlord at market rates. The price controls complained of by the top commenter do not exist. There is no such thing as a law saying "This vacant apartment? You…

That's completely untrue. I live in a rent-stabilized apartment I rented at (moderately) below-market rates three years ago. Had the landlord not done what they claim are $40,000 worth of renovations, they would have had to rent it to me at something like half the market rate.

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#19

Post by czinck »

colinbartlett wrote: post #4
exelius wrote: post #2

This is the problem with housing subsidies: they very often go to those who don't need them. In New York, your choice of apartment is primarily based on location -- anything that's not in the >$1 million range is pretty similar. So if you're looking at two apartments near your work and the rent stabilized one is $1200/mo and the other is $3000/mo, you try to get the $1200/mo one even if you could afford the $3000/mo…

Not necessarily disagreeing with you. But the practical meaning of that is that, in the case of New York, this means the entire island of Manhattan becomes a playground for the wealthy and the people who keep that playground humming are relegated to the outer boroughs.

I mean, it practically is. I live in Manhattan, and with the exception of a very few places (basically UES right on the river and then the projects) any studio apartment south of 100th (~115th on the west side) street is going to be $2000/month or more. If you find any place cheaper it is going to be borderline uninhabitable or a 6th floor walkup. Rents in Harlem are going up now, too.

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#20

Post by nuschk »

exelius wrote: post #2

This is the problem with housing subsidies: they very often go to those who don't need them. In New York, your choice of apartment is primarily based on location -- anything that's not in the >$1 million range is pretty similar. So if you're looking at two apartments near your work and the rent stabilized one is $1200/mo and the other is $3000/mo, you try to get the $1200/mo one even if you could afford the $3000/mo…

Well, economists often suggest a better way than just let the rich take over: directly subsidize people, not flats. So, if you want a neighborhood to not just attract bankers but also families with kids, pay the families for living there! The idea is to pay them only while they live there - independently of which accommodation they choose - and stop the payments when they move away. This way, the market isn't distorted, people don't get "sticky" in their ability to move to other apartments, and the whole setup is much more fair, as it's pretty easy to control who gets which benefits.

The downside, of course, is that the cost of such payments is far more transparent to the public. Many economists would argue that it's in fact much cheaper, as you it's more efficient. Still, today's subsidies are well hidden and almost never show up in household budgets. And thus it's hard to get to a system of direct payment.

Post reply on HN