New York's Rent Regulation Fight • Hacker News Board

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#41

Post by damon_c » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

evanpw wrote: post #29

krschultz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has already happened. Most of the people that currently live in rent controlled or price stabilized apartments got them decades ago. The waiting list for any units that become available is extremely long. That effectively means most rent control is helping the elderly. I present that without comment or judgement, it's just a fact. The elderly are generally not the people manning the counter at your local bodega.…

Very interesting. According to this: http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/HVS_Rent_Stabiliz... , in Manhattan below 96th street 35% of rent-stabilized apartment dwellers moved in more than 20 years ago! (Versus 2.7% of those in non-stabilized apartments). Another interesting fact from that paper: the median person in a rent-stabilized apartment in core Manhattan has a higher income than the median person in a n…

I don't know how prevalent this is but from my experience, rent stabilization is largely gamed by many landlords.

My lease in Manhattan is for about 60% higher than what we are paying. We are then given a "preferential rent" rider which allows us to pay what we pay... This I assume is so the landlord keeps the building at his rent stabilization maximum which are about $3k higher than market rate. This is probably happening everywhere (at least in my last 3 apis) and it really amounts to no stabilization at all...

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#42

Post by bsimpson » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:22 PM UTC

iolothebard wrote: post #39

bsimpson wrote: post #30

Wow - a regulated rental market that makes San Francisco look comparatively sane.

Lmao, not really. They're both fucked up. At least in NYC you can build up, in SF you've only got SoMa you can build in.

I mean less about the building and more about the rental regulation. In SF, you are either regulated or you aren't, and the rules are pretty simple (if your unit is older than 1996 and is not the only unit your landlord owns, you have rent control).

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#43

Post by xname » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:48 PM UTC

"For renters like Soni Fink, 91, the rules have meant she can keep living in the apartment she moved into in 1961. A move to market rate would easily eat up her retirement income, she tells the BBC outside her two-bedroom home towards the south of Manhattan."

Why Soni Fink, 91, is entitled to live in a two-bedroom home?

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#44

Post by bradleyjg » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:55 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #35

URSpider94 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but New York definitely has two levels of rent pricing controls: rent control and rent stabilization. With rent control, the rent never increases, it is fixed for the duration of tenancy, and can even be handed down (once) to a family member. Once that tenant or their heir vacates the apartment, then the rent goes to market rate with no further regulation. With rent stabilizati…

Hmm...from that description it sounds like eventually every unit will end up unregulated. Is there any mechanism that creates new rent controlled or rent stabilized units, or converts an unregulated unit into a rent stabilized or rent controlled unit?

The mechanism for new rent stabilized units are set asides in exchange for tax credits and/or zoning variances in new buildings. They end up costing the city a lot more in forgone property taxes than residents save in rent, but nonetheless seem to keep getting renewed.

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#45

Post by mathattack » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 10:12 PM UTC

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…

There are many many problems with the current system:

- It locks people into poor locations. Someone that is unemployed lives in a massively subsidized apartment in the Bronx. A job opens up in South Brooklyn. Would they move and take it? Not when their rent will go up 4X.

- It helps long term residents at the expense of shorter term residents, and companies who hire them.

- It only helps the small subset of the needy who can get in, and leaves the others out in the lurch.

- It discourages investment in the housing infrastructure.

I can keep going, but it would take me an hour to finish venting.

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#46

Post by kazinator » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 10:33 PM UTC

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…

> Is it fair?

Absolutely. You can't dictate to the owner of private property how much it should sell or rent for. (Unless maybe your surname is Lenin or Zedong.)

What's next? Why not have the government step in if someone dares ask $300 on Craiglist for a bicycle that's only worth $50 and make him or her sell it for $30? If someone forks up $300 let that be. If nobody buys it, let the message slowly dawn upon the seller.

> desirable areas of certain cities end up effectively "off limits" to lower income renters.

Speaking of desirable: It is an undeniable fact, also that a lack of lower income renters is part of what makes those areas desirable. It's not just the views, quality of the suites or city convenience. It's also the fact that poor people aren't there. Same as country clubs, private schools, and all that.

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#47

Post by kazinator » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 12:13 AM UTC

xname wrote: post #43

"For renters like Soni Fink, 91, the rules have meant she can keep living in the apartment she moved into in 1961. A move to market rate would easily eat up her retirement income, she tells the BBC outside her two-bedroom home towards the south of Manhattan." Why Soni Fink, 91, is entitled to live in a two-bedroom home?

I can construe an entitlement story on behalf of Soni Fink like this: since 1961, she probably put in enough money into rent that if it had one into a mortgage, she would own the place, with enough left over for all the upkeep.

The fact that she has been a tenant for more than half a century and paid into the building should count for something. It can be argued.

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#48

Post by autokad » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 12:37 AM UTC

mjmahone17 wrote: post #37

michaeltoth wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who commutes via Amtrak? You can drive from Philly to Trenton or a similar station (takes ~30 minutes from NE Philly), then spend ~1 hr on NJ Transit. This makes the trip cost $15.50+gas, or $440 monthly.

i dont own a car. if owning a car was part of my every day life perhaps, but otherwise I'd have to factor in the price and costs of the car which are extreme

also the hour and a half is optimistic, parking walking overhead waiting for the train would probably again push time up

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#49

Post by nextw33k » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:24 AM UTC

xname wrote: post #43

"For renters like Soni Fink, 91, the rules have meant she can keep living in the apartment she moved into in 1961. A move to market rate would easily eat up her retirement income, she tells the BBC outside her two-bedroom home towards the south of Manhattan." Why Soni Fink, 91, is entitled to live in a two-bedroom home?

You need to learn about old age and how it effects the brain.

You take an alzheimer's patient out of their home and place them in a hospital or new home and you are effectively transporting them to another planet, it freaks them out.

Your home is your kingdom, she's been there too long to feel comfortable anywhere else. Its not idea, its not economically the best utilisation of a resource, but it is human.

Re: New York's Rent Regulation Fight

#50

Post by nextw33k » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:27 AM UTC

The correct solution to this problem is to tax the rental income and hand that money to low income households. It would create a balance of correct market prices and allowing low income people to stay.

Just letting the price float and pushing low income people out creates an unbalanced society where a class divide builds up over time. Modern housing policy in the UK is to mix social housing with regular housing developments, having social housing all grouped into one location was a catastrophically bad idea from the post war era.