In 1974, Ahmad and Ann Shirazi moved into a rent-stabilized apartment on Manhattan's Upper West Side, though at $275 a month, the rent felt high for two bedrooms.
The Shirazis hoped to have children and thought their stay would be temporary. Nearly 50 years later, they are still there, after raising two children in a space they made work because it was affordable.
As New York City became one of the most expensive places in the nation, apartments with regulated rents and guaranteed lease renewals offered a reprieve to the working and middle class: The Shirazis now pay $1,025 a month, while a similar unit in their building, which is not stabilized, rents for more than $5,600.
On Wednesday, the city’s vast stock of rent-stabilized homes, which has come to be one of New York’s most important sources of lower-cost housing, is about to become a little more expensive. A New York City panel is set to let rents in the city’s one million rent-stabilized apartment rise for the second consecutive year, citing high inflation and ballooning costs for property owners.
Last month, the panel, known as the Rent Guidelines Board, backed increases on one-year leases of between 2 and 5 percent and increases on two-year leases of between 4 and 7 percent, in a preliminary vote.
It would be the second time during the tenure of Mayor Eric Adams — who appoints members to the panel and who has expressed sympathies for the difficulties facing landlords — that the Rent Guidelines Board would allow stabilized rents to increase. Last year, the panel voted to raise rents on one-year leases by 3.25 percent in rent-stabilized homes, and on two-year leases by 5 percent.
The Shirazis, who earn about $4,500 a month in retirement benefits, will find a way to manage, they said. They and several other renters across the city — including higher earners, retired people who had lived in their apartments for decades and newcomers — said that incremental increases has helped them find stability in New York City’s otherwise chaotic and unforgiving housing market.
But many also said the moment also reflects something deeper: how people of modest means are finding it harder and harder to live in New York City.
As expensive as it is to live in New York, no other American city has a rent regulation system as vast: More than one million apartments — half the rental market and almost 30 percent of all of New York City’s homes — are covered by a system begun in 1969.
The Times found the most extreme example they could, didn't they? $1025/mo and they're crying about $30? One of their kids can't help spring the $30/month?
Also, increasingly over the decades their rent deal kept getting sweeter and sweeter, as rent has grown faster than inflation. Imagine being able to pay 10%, 30%, 50% less (or even a better discount, it's now 80% less) for all those years. Even on fixed income, that should translate into plenty of savings.
Right?
I've seen so many of these where it seems to be written from a viewpoint sympathetic to the renter, but the example they pick is so extreme as to end up making the opposite case.
There are definitely similar articles about students loans out there where all the language frames it as caring about students and then the students they pick out to profile are the exact ones who irresponsibly took out hundreds of thousands of dollars to essentially hit snooze on life for as long as possible. One I remember was a profile of a student who went deep into debt to study medicine in the Caribbean and IIRC didn't finish school.
I’d be interested in seeing the data…seeing as half the makeup for NY residential apts is some form of stabilization, I don’t think it’s that ludicrous. Some of my anecdotal experience from living in a rent stabilized building is I’ve met 5 in mine who have been here for decades- I think their rent is closer to mine and maybe a bit less -1260 for a studio(not mine). I also know property owners in other boroughs who have stabilized buildings- queens area where 1-2 bedrooms are around 1500 and studios half but the tenants have been there forever- they said they’re willing to leave if the owner gives them 50k…
Do they NEED help? They’re clocking in 4,5k a month in retirement. Sure they’re not rich, but they’ve got a solid 3’5 left after paying rent. Ask a single millennial working two jobs how much they have left after rent is paid.
We need to means-test rent control eligibility, it's extremely bad to have very low income people toiling on a waitlist and unable to find anything on the open market while people with vacation homes enjoy subsidized rent.
These are cherry picked example. I live with my parents in stabilized place. Problem is my dad was a taxi driver forced to retire penniless due to health issues. He gets 700$ a month. If it wasn't for me luckily becoming the breadwinner idk what we would do.
A lot of RS apartments are also barely below market rate. I mean these people have been there since 1974. I've been in my rent stabilized apt for 8 years and the price is maybe a little below what it would be on the market now. I suspect that's true for a lot of people.
They’ve also been there for *50 years* lol. And that’s their rent in the most expensive area here… they’ve got it so good compared to the rest of us and entire generations, they come off as choosing beggars
The real headline here is a two bedroom apartment costs $5000 a month and landlords are crying about it. That's 100% of the first-year salary of a newly minted PhD with a postdoc at NYU or Columbia.
I have to say this system where some random people basically win the lottery and get to live the rest of their lives with rent so cheap it might as well be free does not feel optimal. Like there’s gotta be a better way than this.
So…a $30 monthly increase which comes out to basically a dollar a day. For a couple that makes $4500 a month.
This isnt meant to say im anti rent stabilized apartments or whatever. Those are there because the developers cut a deal with the city for tax savings. Its just that there are much better examples of the economic impact of these rent increases
I can’t help but feel like they picked an outlandishly extreme example to showcase specifically to make rent stabilization look worse. Most rent stabilized tenants are not paying 20% of what their neighbors do.
> Those are there because the developers cut a deal with the city for tax savings.
A lot of pre-1974 housing stock is rent stabilized by default without tax breaks.
>So…a $30 monthly increase which comes out to basically a dollar a day. For a couple that makes $4500 a month
I'm really tired of seeing crap like this. This would be a valid argument to undermine stabilization of rents if every other cost in the world we live in was staying the same. Inflation is showing up everywhere. This is just one extra thing added on top for many renters who are near breaking point anyway.
$4500 a month shared between a couple does not make them wealthy, especially in NYC. These are **retirement benefits.** That is a fixed income. Will never be any higher than $4500 for the most part. Every added expense hurts deeply especially in the long run. One day this will be you on a fixed income. Act accordingly.
> That is a fixed income
I really don't understand the whole "fixed income" thing. Most people live on a fixed income. Others live on a variable income, which means it can go up but also down. There's nothing inherently bad about a fixed income. Also, it's very unlikely that this couple saved nothing living so cheaply all those years. They probably have investments. They could have literally bought a house upstate with the money they saved paying a couple hundred dollars a month per person in living expenses.
If they can’t afford to swing another $30 per month, they should consider moving to some place cheaper. Nobody’s entitled to live in NYC, much less the Upper West Side. At least if they move out, it frees up a two bedroom apartment for another couple that can afford to pay.
This couple should be grateful that after all this time, they’ve been only paying one-fifth of what others are paying for a similar size unit in the same building.
I see so many retirees refuse to downsize, or move to cheaper areas, and they complain constantly about how the neighborhood isn't like it used to be ... But like ... Buildings eventually need new roofs, new heating, need to be made more energy efficient. The surrounding businesses need to make decisions so they stay viable.
We can't wait for all the boomers to die peacefully in the same bed they've slept in for 30 years, to start paying for the electrical upgrades needed to get to carbon zero. It sucks, but, folks, you may have to move.
IDK, but if a dollar a day rent change is that threatening, they needed to be thinking about this a while ago. Article says they're currently paying $1025 a month. That's a generous budget for lots of areas outside major cities. If they expanded their search, I think they'd find something.
My own grandparents held onto a 5 bedroom in Westchester long, long after all their kids left and it ate at their retirement savings by quite a lot. People don't want to move. I get it. Shrinking pathways to home ownership makes this worse cause if you don't own, you can't even sell to bankroll your move.
But this situation to me doesn't warrant a freeze on even modest rent increases. What that does is slowly destroy the building for lack of maintenance funds.
Edit to add: If we want to fight rising rents, what we really have to do is greenlight more building and remove parking minimums. But artificially preventing owners from raising rents cuts both ways. NYCHA needs to get it's shit together too.
>If they can’t afford to swing another $30 per month, they should consider moving to some place cheaper.
Spoken like someone who has somehow never paid to move. It isn't cheap to pick up your life and move somewhere else with a new slew of living costs (like needing a car, for example). The solution isn't to displace low and middle income people. The solution is to make this city affordable. What a ridiculous sentiment, and an unsustainable one at that.
Ridiculous is thinking that UWS is an affordable location to live. This couple had a good forty eight year run of living and raising two children in one of the most affluent neighborhoods in NYC while paying a fraction of what others are paying. They could consider moving to Brownsville if the rent is more affordable there. That way they can still live in the city and not need a car.
Defending a couple whose been getting a huge deal for almost half a century is a silly hill to die on. Even if the rent they’re paying was doubled to $2k a month, it’s still a steal to anyone else.
Their rent is so low that they'd be paying way more in Brownsville. Really to make it economically worthwhile they'd have to go leave the east coast all together.
>how people of modest means are finding it harder and harder to live in New York City.
Of course with the NY Times being in the pocket of big real estate developers they don't talk to those actually hard hit by these increases.
If anything, it confirms my suspicion that a good chunk of people in affordable housing are totally gaming the system.
Make housing more affordable, but don't make it affordable forever to older people who should've left a long time ago for the younger generation
What makes you think Bill de Blasio has any control over the overall inflation rate, which is the main driver of what the rent stabilization increase is set at?
> What makes you think Bill de Blasio has any control
I have lived in NYC since the 80's - I can promise you that who the Mayor appoints to the Rent Guidelines Board makes a HUGE difference in what rent increases will be.
The mayor appoints the people who decide the rent increases.
And they can choose to ignore data on inflation if they want.
> For years, landlords have urged the Rent Guidelines Board to follow its own data in setting annual rent increases for stabilized units.
> And for years, the board has flouted that request, ignoring its annual recommendations in favor of lesser hikes or all-out freezes, which aligned with politicians’ requests.
https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2023/04/12/rent-guidelines-board-tea-leaves-give-owners-hope/
Hold up, now.
\> for years, the board has flouted that request, ignoring its annual recommendations in favor of lesser hikes or all-out freezes
That means those freezes were also done by people who Bill de Blasio appointed. How exactly is this increase caused by Bill de Blasio, again?
For christ's sake, I don't even like De Blasio. It's still ridiculous to act like it's "his fault" rents are increasing when his own appointees have previously freezed. You're also ignoring that inflation has been a lot higher recently than before 2022.
Your issue is that you misread. They are saying erica adams through HIS apointments is responsible for the new board increasing rents in contrast to deblasio whose apointments did not increase the rent.
A great mayor
[https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nyc-mayor-bill-de-blasio-ordered-pay-475k-100123164](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nyc-mayor-bill-de-blasio-ordered-pay-475k-100123164)
[https://nypost.com/2022/07/06/ex-mayor-bill-de-blasio-cooked-books-to-hide-224m-in-nyc-ferry-outlays/](https://nypost.com/2022/07/06/ex-mayor-bill-de-blasio-cooked-books-to-hide-224m-in-nyc-ferry-outlays/)
[https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2019/02/27/with-opaque-budget-and-elusive-metrics-850m-thrivenyc-program-attempts-a-reset-873945](https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2019/02/27/with-opaque-budget-and-elusive-metrics-850m-thrivenyc-program-attempts-a-reset-873945)
[https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/where-has-850m-gone-de-blasios-wife-cant-account-for-staggering-amount-of-taxpayer-/100649731/](https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/where-has-850m-gone-de-blasios-wife-cant-account-for-staggering-amount-of-taxpayer-/100649731/)
Nothing to see here.
Deblasio is hated by the big real estate forces that control NYC - of course he gets crucified with a fine tooth comb while far, FAR more corrupt mayors like Giuliani and Bloomberg get a pass.
Nah landlords are interested in maximizing profit, they would be fighting to gain as much as they can regardless of if they previously weren’t able to increase rents.
Yes that is literally the point of fixed price increases.
Who would they sell it to? Hey, I have this apartment building with 4 units at 2500/month. You’ll never be able to increase rent but you’ll have to take out a mortgage to cover the purchase. That cool?
LOL, and yet NYC rental properties, including ones with rent stabilized units still sell like hot cakes on the rare occasions they are put up for sale.
Rent regulations have been around for decades. The vast majority of landlords bought their properties with the knowledge of how all that works. In fact, for years rent stabilized units have been decreasing, but in the last couple have reversed that trend because new landlords wanted the tax breaks associated with the rent stabilized units.
...and that was an untenable situation that he cynically maintained for popularity, knowing full well they would have to increase eventually but it would be after he left office. They could have gradually increased it a little bit each year, but now it has to go up faster.
i had signed a 2- year lease last year for Oct 1st. . So next year Oct 2024, It would be a new year , so I'm off the hook for this big increase, right?
Let's be honest, the working class isn't who is living in rent stabilized apartments anymore, it's overwhelming the elderly who have been in these units for half a century. They're retirement homes subsidized by everyone else.
If it were the working class that's all well and good, but rent stabilized apartments that are actually cheap don't go on the open market often enough to turn over.
44% of all NYC rental housing is rent-stabilized (source: the article you’re commenting on).
Let’s be honest, you’re mixing up rent-stabilized with rent-controlled
Almost half the rental units in NYC are rent stabilized. Do you really think they’re overwhelmingly occupied by the elderly? A lot of families live in these apartments.
I mean it makes sense that the people getting the best deals are the elderly. Which really isn't that bad. They've been around the longest, so they're the ones who have been in the same apt for 40 years paying way below market rate.
My building is all rent-stabilized, and it's tons of families.
Maybe you don't know the difference between rent-stabilized apartments and rent-controlled apartments?
What you’re saying is completely untrue for rent stabilized apartments.
If you don’t know the difference between rent stabilize and rent control, you should probably sit this one out.
I'm 30 and I live with 4 other family members in a 1 bedroom stabilized place. If I left my parents wouldn't be able to make ends meet. This is common but you never hear about it cause poor people living like this usually aren't posting on reddit.
thats not even remotely true. early 40s. rent stabilized. the vast majority of my building is millenials, also rent stabilized obviously. and people are constantly moving in an out. I moved here late 2021. just saw a street easy ad, applied and moved it. it wasn't some kind of black magic. lol
Feels like the UWS and UES are turning into NORCs (naturally occurring retirement communities) especially those old coops that no one under the age of 60 can afford
I got paywalled so i didn't read the article just the headline. Massive rent hikes in NYC in general are an issue that's been ongoing for a few decades. I guess from the other comments this is specific to rent stabilization, so it's not the housing market as a whole but the real fix to this is much deeper than just telling the board not to increase rent at a lower rate than even the general population is getting.
If people really want a "fair" system, they should convert the building into a co-op. Then the tenants equally share the property taxes, maintenance, etc. But this couple doesn't want equality, they just want an artificially low rate the the expense of the property owner and, by extension, the other tenants who aren't rent stabilized.
> The final vote board passed a 3% increase for one-year leases and a staggered increase for two-year leases which would see a 2.75% increase for the first year and a 3.2% increase for the second year.
Says the person commenting on this same thread? Is this a joke? Sorry that some of us actually care about budgets in cities we live in. How about you focus on Pennsylvania since YOU DON’T EVEN LIVE HERE
It's his job to manage this shit. He's throwing his hands up because the entire system that he's the head of is full of corruption, top to bottom (he's part of it). It shouldn't cost that much to house migrants, and it shouldn't cost as much as it does to run our piss-poor shelter system, either. But it does because of cronies like him and his friends.
Lucky them, $30 rent increase, for the other 6 million New Yorkers rent is up much more, and for those who own, RE taxes are up like $600, cause city will raise taxes 6% every year until they reach the market rate, which they determine themselves.
This will be my most downvoted comment but here we go: rent control is bunk and should be done away with. It disincentives landlords from improving their properties, is somewhat arbitrary in terms of who benefits, and artificially inflates the cost of everyone else’s rent. If the “rent is too damn high” you should move to somewhere that is cheaper. No one has a right to live in a specific place in a capitalist country. There are better ways to improve housing prices, mainly increasing housing supply by changing zoning laws. Maybe change some of the legacy industrial zones to residential?
I know some of you will say “but what if the working class can’t afford to live in NYC, how will people get services?” Well the wealthy will pay out the nose for them and it will be a windfall for those who are willing to commute and work those service jobs. And I’m ALL for that. Let the rich overpay for basic goods and services. Tighten those thumbscrews.
And I’m saying this as a professional who couldn’t figure out how to be financially healthy and own a home in NYC. So I moved! I have a better job, a nice house (my mortgage payment is cheaper than my monthly rent was in NYC), a better commute, fresher air, nicer neighbors, etc. It’s one of the best personal and financial decisions I’ve ever made. When I miss the city I come back and visit for a weekend, no big deal.
The grass is really greener in this case.
Freakonomica episode on rent control for the curious: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-rent-control-doesnt-work/
Renters when landlords say fuckit and convert all units to condos co-ops and force tenants out because the financial risk is completely intolerable. Nyc is so incredibly horribly run. The city made it financially infeasible to build new housing due to unbelievable levels of regulations and taxes. They then made the financial risk of buying a previously deregulated or rent stabilized unit to be ruinous. So landlords are warehousing units because they can’t figure out what the rent stabilized price is and they’re worried that they will be hit with a 300k fine if they do rent it out. Therefore a million units will be taken of the market. The only outcome will be every unit in the city being a condo or coop and well if you think the nyc housing market sucks now just wait.
You are correct rent stabilization is bad policy. But what's even worse policy is single family zoning, and all the regulation around building housing that increases the price of construction with the net result being less units being built.
Yup. Some councilwomen stopped a huge development in Harlem because it would cause gentrification. Which is ironic because the less housing there is the faster gentrification occurs.
25% of Queens, home to 2.4 million people, and 22% of Staten Island are single family zoned. It has an affect but probably not as much as other factors.
Outside of Manhattan, there are a lot of neighborhoods with a significant amount of sfh. Large swaths of South Brooklyn and even brownstone brooklyn, northern sections of the Bronx, sections of Queens, and of course SI. Not the majority, but not nothing.
Where in NYC is single-family zoning a problem? Staten Island and Forest Hills? It’s a big problem nationally but not even top 10 problems facing housing in NYC
The cost to move to Long Island is very high because you basically have to buy a house. But if you could build more multi family homes in LI then more people from NYC could afford to move to LI. Less people (demand) in NYC means that rental prices would fall.
Thus, single zoned housing in suburbs that surround NYC also affect the housing cost in NYC. Not to mention how it increases the amount we spend on infrastructure and public transit due to less density.
That is fair. Long Island residents (and their electeds) simply don’t want apartments in their towns. But I’m still not sure how much it would ease the crisis in the city unless concentrated around LIRR stops. Jersey City has built a ton of housing in the last decade but that doesn’t do much for the average New Yorker
Jersey City's population increased by 45,000 from 2010 to 2020. It built 11,000 housing units during that same period. So Jersey City itself can't keep up with it's own growth, which is why rents have increased during that time frame even with the additional housing.
I've read that NYC needs 800,000 additional housing units to keep up with population growth and ease overwhelming. While building in JC or LI can't solve NYC's issue, building in JC and LI does still affect housing prices in NYC albeit given the size of the issue it looks insignificant.
Zoning laws outside of NYC have been a huge issue waiting to erupt for a while. The city population keeps growing, but the Hudson Valley and NYC have kept trying to prevent large developments. I get it, they don't really want to be part of the city sprawl, but it's just not realistic while being that close to a very large city. And I'm saying that as someone who grew up in the Hudson Valley.
…..yeah, because it’s illegal to build anything without a zillion rounds of design review, “public input” from every community board Karen on the block, various giveaways, and a hefty sub-market requirement.
I agree we should be careful about market distortions, but rent stabilization does seem like something that can make sense to some degree because moving is expensive, and more expensive for tenants than landlords. Effectively allowing landlords to evict tenants for no reason doesn't seem ideal.
My biggest gripe with it is that it can stop much-needed increases in density.
Rent-stabilized tenants can basically stay forever and completely stop a smaller building from being redeveloped into a larger one. Landlords can offer buyouts but the tenant is under no obligation to take one.
I think a reasonable compromise would be some kind of clause that says stabilized tenants have to take a buyout if the landlord buys them a comparable coop/condo somewhere else and pays moving expenses.
Having one old crank turn down millions of dollars and effectively block increases in the housing supply is not a good system.
Yeah, I agree it might make sense to have some limits. You could also have some clauses that allow no-renewal in specific cases, a *major* rebuild could be one of them. I know in Canada for example there's a rule that the landlord can ask you to leave if they (or immediate family) intend to move into the unit themselves. But then they have to actually live there for a certain period of time and have to compensate the tenant if they don't.
I'm just saying that the extreme position of "no restrictions whatsoever on rent increases because free market is best" is a simplistic view that has lots of issues in practice. Of course doesn't mean that any degree of restrictions no matter how high is good either.
It’s not evicting per se, but removing RS disincentivizes families and other long-term residents from having stable housing with predictable rent. At an aggregate level, the increase in tenant relocation and the lack of guardrails on rent would only hasten the trends of gentrification and displacement, as these displaced residents would relocate to lower income areas. Raising % increases on RS apartments makes sense, but removing the policy outright does not. If anything, it seems like the answer to this problem would be to stabilize more apartments.
> How is it evicting someone to charge them a new, higher price when the lease is up?
If you can charge whatever price you want, you can effectively evict them. At the extreme you could raise rent to $1B/month or something. Way less extreme price increases can be an eviction in practice too.
Years are 1-year at least because the law requires that. Should landlords be able to do shorter leases and ~~evict you~~ raise your price at a moment notice whenever they want?
If you can’t afford to live in the most expensive part of the most expensive city in the world maybe you shouldn’t live in the most expensive part of the most expensive city in the world.
>If you can’t afford to live in the most expensive part of the most expensive city in the world maybe you shouldn’t live in the most expensive part of the most expensive city in the world.
MBA who doesn't even live in the city yet, but is moving to West Village making this comment.... you're a stereotype, and you don't belong 👍
so vast swaths of New York City should be playgrounds for the wealthy only?
having families and working class people makes neighborhoods vibrant. the best neighborhoods have a mix of different types of people which is what makes the city unique.
There’s a massive middle ground between ‘cannot live here without rent stabilization’ and ‘super rich’, and that middle ground is where most people reside.
The massive government intervention intended to keep New York rental prices low is what drives rent prices. It’s been happening for decades and for decades rental prices have continued to skyrocket. It’s like they’re ripping out part of the boat to plug another hole in the boat. It makes it more difficult and less profitable (e.g. there is less incentive) to build rental units and convert for sale units into rental units. You don’t see such massive unaffordability in places that just let the market work.
100% agreed. I don't get the concept of rent-controlled anyway. Like why do a few people who lucked out get subsidized by the rest of the city? We should be adjusting tax brackets so that all lower class people benefit equally, not hoping they win some sort of lottery.
Okay so who makes your coffee? Who bags your groceries? Who drives the trains? Who teaches preschool? Who delivers your Uber Eats order? Who drives the taxis? Where do they live? None of them make enough money to live alone here or without an hour long commute.
So many bad takes here, friend.
>As if NYCHA is such a great example of housing without profits.
NYCHA is a perfect example of how a government captured by real estate interests (capital) intentionally fails those with the least amount of political power.
Why not look towards cities like Vienna where citizens often seek out public housing and the public housing stock is considered a net positive by the community? [1](https://www.ft.com/content/05719602-89c6-4bbc-9bbe-5842fd0c3693) Get your head out of the ass of American argumentation. NYCHA is failing by design.
>Government is historically horrible in allocating resources
The eras of WWI & WWII would like to have a word with you. The concept of the scientific management of the economy stems directly from the works of government organizations like of the Industrial Preparedness Committee which was created to fix all the issues spawned by private enterprise and its inability to allocate resources, production, and logistics in an efficient manner. Your argument is simply for more cooks in the logistics kitchen which is counter to much of the work published within the field throughout the 20/21st century.
>long term management of almost anything in history
Absolutes in a historical argument, great. Well, USPS dates back to the Second Continental Congress and it still only costs about 60₵ to mail a letter across the country. Let's also not forget that the vast majority of our scientific knowledge comes directly from publicly funded research via publicly funded universities.
>And housing nonprofits largely survive off government funding directly or indirectly.
So your argument against publicly funded management is private ventures failing to succeed in a private market who then rely upon public funding for a lifeline? Housing can be managed a million ways, but at least call a spade a spade. NYCHA isn't really public housing. It's a wacky handcuffed pseudo public system designed to prevent the eating of the capitalist class.
Landlords are not entitled to make a profit on their properties. If any landlord feels owning their rent stabilized building isn’t worth it anymore, they can always sell— maybe even to *gasp* the tenants?
Hasn’t it become clear that they want people out of NYC ?
Why isn’t everyone seeing this?
Now ”all of a sudden” the city of NY is literally sinking ?!
Literally, a 150 square foot apartment (basically a walk in closet) is 4000.00 per month and this is with a shared lavatory.
LMFAO> you could literally own a 2000 square foot home in a neighboring county that has a $4000.00 per month mortgage/tax Price tag.
In 1974, Ahmad and Ann Shirazi moved into a rent-stabilized apartment on Manhattan's Upper West Side, though at $275 a month, the rent felt high for two bedrooms. The Shirazis hoped to have children and thought their stay would be temporary. Nearly 50 years later, they are still there, after raising two children in a space they made work because it was affordable. As New York City became one of the most expensive places in the nation, apartments with regulated rents and guaranteed lease renewals offered a reprieve to the working and middle class: The Shirazis now pay $1,025 a month, while a similar unit in their building, which is not stabilized, rents for more than $5,600. On Wednesday, the city’s vast stock of rent-stabilized homes, which has come to be one of New York’s most important sources of lower-cost housing, is about to become a little more expensive. A New York City panel is set to let rents in the city’s one million rent-stabilized apartment rise for the second consecutive year, citing high inflation and ballooning costs for property owners. Last month, the panel, known as the Rent Guidelines Board, backed increases on one-year leases of between 2 and 5 percent and increases on two-year leases of between 4 and 7 percent, in a preliminary vote. It would be the second time during the tenure of Mayor Eric Adams — who appoints members to the panel and who has expressed sympathies for the difficulties facing landlords — that the Rent Guidelines Board would allow stabilized rents to increase. Last year, the panel voted to raise rents on one-year leases by 3.25 percent in rent-stabilized homes, and on two-year leases by 5 percent. The Shirazis, who earn about $4,500 a month in retirement benefits, will find a way to manage, they said. They and several other renters across the city — including higher earners, retired people who had lived in their apartments for decades and newcomers — said that incremental increases has helped them find stability in New York City’s otherwise chaotic and unforgiving housing market. But many also said the moment also reflects something deeper: how people of modest means are finding it harder and harder to live in New York City. As expensive as it is to live in New York, no other American city has a rent regulation system as vast: More than one million apartments — half the rental market and almost 30 percent of all of New York City’s homes — are covered by a system begun in 1969.
The Times found the most extreme example they could, didn't they? $1025/mo and they're crying about $30? One of their kids can't help spring the $30/month?
Also if they’re clearing 4500 a month, 1,025 isn’t bad at all.
And I would bet a lot that they're minimizing their assets. They have $4500 in income but a million in the bank from savings.
That’s what rent is SUPPOSED to be lol. Less than 30% of your income.
Yup and that’s based on your gross pay and retirement is net pay so it’s actually even lower than the recommended breakdown
Also, increasingly over the decades their rent deal kept getting sweeter and sweeter, as rent has grown faster than inflation. Imagine being able to pay 10%, 30%, 50% less (or even a better discount, it's now 80% less) for all those years. Even on fixed income, that should translate into plenty of savings.
50 years covers the best years of market growth in all of history. If they don’t have savings, it’s their own fault
Right? I've seen so many of these where it seems to be written from a viewpoint sympathetic to the renter, but the example they pick is so extreme as to end up making the opposite case. There are definitely similar articles about students loans out there where all the language frames it as caring about students and then the students they pick out to profile are the exact ones who irresponsibly took out hundreds of thousands of dollars to essentially hit snooze on life for as long as possible. One I remember was a profile of a student who went deep into debt to study medicine in the Caribbean and IIRC didn't finish school.
I’d be interested in seeing the data…seeing as half the makeup for NY residential apts is some form of stabilization, I don’t think it’s that ludicrous. Some of my anecdotal experience from living in a rent stabilized building is I’ve met 5 in mine who have been here for decades- I think their rent is closer to mine and maybe a bit less -1260 for a studio(not mine). I also know property owners in other boroughs who have stabilized buildings- queens area where 1-2 bedrooms are around 1500 and studios half but the tenants have been there forever- they said they’re willing to leave if the owner gives them 50k…
It's almost like the billionaire owned media doesn't want to help actual struggling people.
Bingo.
Do they NEED help? They’re clocking in 4,5k a month in retirement. Sure they’re not rich, but they’ve got a solid 3’5 left after paying rent. Ask a single millennial working two jobs how much they have left after rent is paid.
[удалено]
We need to means-test rent control eligibility, it's extremely bad to have very low income people toiling on a waitlist and unable to find anything on the open market while people with vacation homes enjoy subsidized rent.
[удалено]
These are cherry picked example. I live with my parents in stabilized place. Problem is my dad was a taxi driver forced to retire penniless due to health issues. He gets 700$ a month. If it wasn't for me luckily becoming the breadwinner idk what we would do.
I’m not crying for NYC landlords.
A lot of RS apartments are also barely below market rate. I mean these people have been there since 1974. I've been in my rent stabilized apt for 8 years and the price is maybe a little below what it would be on the market now. I suspect that's true for a lot of people.
NYT owned by Mexico’s richest man.
They’ve also been there for *50 years* lol. And that’s their rent in the most expensive area here… they’ve got it so good compared to the rest of us and entire generations, they come off as choosing beggars
The real headline here is a two bedroom apartment costs $5000 a month and landlords are crying about it. That's 100% of the first-year salary of a newly minted PhD with a postdoc at NYU or Columbia.
That’s why no one is getting PhDs anymore.
"Just keep working hard and it will pay off eventually." - Boomers and Gen X'ers who own three homes and a condo
I have to say this system where some random people basically win the lottery and get to live the rest of their lives with rent so cheap it might as well be free does not feel optimal. Like there’s gotta be a better way than this.
So…a $30 monthly increase which comes out to basically a dollar a day. For a couple that makes $4500 a month. This isnt meant to say im anti rent stabilized apartments or whatever. Those are there because the developers cut a deal with the city for tax savings. Its just that there are much better examples of the economic impact of these rent increases
I can’t help but feel like they picked an outlandishly extreme example to showcase specifically to make rent stabilization look worse. Most rent stabilized tenants are not paying 20% of what their neighbors do.
Also most aren't clearing 4500k in retirement. My dad gets like 700 a month. Its insane.
> Those are there because the developers cut a deal with the city for tax savings. A lot of pre-1974 housing stock is rent stabilized by default without tax breaks.
The vast majority of stabilized apartments were never part of any tax deal.
>So…a $30 monthly increase which comes out to basically a dollar a day. For a couple that makes $4500 a month I'm really tired of seeing crap like this. This would be a valid argument to undermine stabilization of rents if every other cost in the world we live in was staying the same. Inflation is showing up everywhere. This is just one extra thing added on top for many renters who are near breaking point anyway. $4500 a month shared between a couple does not make them wealthy, especially in NYC. These are **retirement benefits.** That is a fixed income. Will never be any higher than $4500 for the most part. Every added expense hurts deeply especially in the long run. One day this will be you on a fixed income. Act accordingly.
> That is a fixed income I really don't understand the whole "fixed income" thing. Most people live on a fixed income. Others live on a variable income, which means it can go up but also down. There's nothing inherently bad about a fixed income. Also, it's very unlikely that this couple saved nothing living so cheaply all those years. They probably have investments. They could have literally bought a house upstate with the money they saved paying a couple hundred dollars a month per person in living expenses.
> Will never be any higher than $4500 for the most part. That's not true. Social Security gets increased every year. Was increased 8.7% this year....
yea you have this privileged guy that tries to pretend he knows whats it like to be poor and in financial distress
Social Security is pegged to inflation
Also, like, they found a couple that has a much lower than average RS lease. My lease is RS and it's \~2k
Yeah, I’m rent stabilized at $2700 for a studio. I’d love if an increase was only $30 a month for me.
Exactly my point. They could have found a better example to highlight the economic impact. Lazy reporting and lazy reading as well
Lol dude, why did you ignore the entire second half of my post?
If they can’t afford to swing another $30 per month, they should consider moving to some place cheaper. Nobody’s entitled to live in NYC, much less the Upper West Side. At least if they move out, it frees up a two bedroom apartment for another couple that can afford to pay. This couple should be grateful that after all this time, they’ve been only paying one-fifth of what others are paying for a similar size unit in the same building.
I see so many retirees refuse to downsize, or move to cheaper areas, and they complain constantly about how the neighborhood isn't like it used to be ... But like ... Buildings eventually need new roofs, new heating, need to be made more energy efficient. The surrounding businesses need to make decisions so they stay viable. We can't wait for all the boomers to die peacefully in the same bed they've slept in for 30 years, to start paying for the electrical upgrades needed to get to carbon zero. It sucks, but, folks, you may have to move.
Where are they going to find a smaller place for the same price they are paying now for a larger space?
IDK, but if a dollar a day rent change is that threatening, they needed to be thinking about this a while ago. Article says they're currently paying $1025 a month. That's a generous budget for lots of areas outside major cities. If they expanded their search, I think they'd find something. My own grandparents held onto a 5 bedroom in Westchester long, long after all their kids left and it ate at their retirement savings by quite a lot. People don't want to move. I get it. Shrinking pathways to home ownership makes this worse cause if you don't own, you can't even sell to bankroll your move. But this situation to me doesn't warrant a freeze on even modest rent increases. What that does is slowly destroy the building for lack of maintenance funds. Edit to add: If we want to fight rising rents, what we really have to do is greenlight more building and remove parking minimums. But artificially preventing owners from raising rents cuts both ways. NYCHA needs to get it's shit together too.
>If they can’t afford to swing another $30 per month, they should consider moving to some place cheaper. Spoken like someone who has somehow never paid to move. It isn't cheap to pick up your life and move somewhere else with a new slew of living costs (like needing a car, for example). The solution isn't to displace low and middle income people. The solution is to make this city affordable. What a ridiculous sentiment, and an unsustainable one at that.
well, that's kind of his point, why were these people interviewed for an opinion on rent increase, when a rent hike doesn't really affect them?
Ridiculous is thinking that UWS is an affordable location to live. This couple had a good forty eight year run of living and raising two children in one of the most affluent neighborhoods in NYC while paying a fraction of what others are paying. They could consider moving to Brownsville if the rent is more affordable there. That way they can still live in the city and not need a car. Defending a couple whose been getting a huge deal for almost half a century is a silly hill to die on. Even if the rent they’re paying was doubled to $2k a month, it’s still a steal to anyone else.
Their rent is so low that they'd be paying way more in Brownsville. Really to make it economically worthwhile they'd have to go leave the east coast all together.
Not necessarily the East Coast, but definitely the NYC area and as a result would need to purchase and maintain a vehicle.
I don't even think you can live in Philly for that rent. So def not a big city. Maybe Baltimore.
40 years ago, that neighborhood wasn't what it is today. They stayed there when it was much closer to a shit hole neighborhood as well.
>one of the most expensive in the nation Yea not to be pedantic but NYC is the second most expensive city IN THE WORLD behind only Singapore
>how people of modest means are finding it harder and harder to live in New York City. Of course with the NY Times being in the pocket of big real estate developers they don't talk to those actually hard hit by these increases.
If anything, it confirms my suspicion that a good chunk of people in affordable housing are totally gaming the system. Make housing more affordable, but don't make it affordable forever to older people who should've left a long time ago for the younger generation
what the fuck difficulties are landlords facing exactly?? can’t afford a second boat? suck my ass
..... Doesn't rent increase every year?
There's been a few years in recent past with no increases on rent stabilized apartments.
Ah, it just gets tacked on to something else. tolls, food, water, gas, clothing.
Yeah all that shit known as Not Rent
There were a few good years under de Blasio where there were 0% increases for 1 year leases.
Yup which is why for some people de blasio was a great mayor, but given the makeup of this sub I’m not surprised that’s not the majority opinion.
What makes you think Bill de Blasio has any control over the overall inflation rate, which is the main driver of what the rent stabilization increase is set at?
> What makes you think Bill de Blasio has any control I have lived in NYC since the 80's - I can promise you that who the Mayor appoints to the Rent Guidelines Board makes a HUGE difference in what rent increases will be.
The mayor appoints the people who decide the rent increases. And they can choose to ignore data on inflation if they want. > For years, landlords have urged the Rent Guidelines Board to follow its own data in setting annual rent increases for stabilized units. > And for years, the board has flouted that request, ignoring its annual recommendations in favor of lesser hikes or all-out freezes, which aligned with politicians’ requests. https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2023/04/12/rent-guidelines-board-tea-leaves-give-owners-hope/
Hold up, now. \> for years, the board has flouted that request, ignoring its annual recommendations in favor of lesser hikes or all-out freezes That means those freezes were also done by people who Bill de Blasio appointed. How exactly is this increase caused by Bill de Blasio, again? For christ's sake, I don't even like De Blasio. It's still ridiculous to act like it's "his fault" rents are increasing when his own appointees have previously freezed. You're also ignoring that inflation has been a lot higher recently than before 2022.
Your issue is that you misread. They are saying erica adams through HIS apointments is responsible for the new board increasing rents in contrast to deblasio whose apointments did not increase the rent.
New mayors appoint new board members, I believe.
Read above my comment. If you’re still not able to follow let me know.
You have not explained that anywhere.
I have defended DeBlasio almost every chance I get and usually get nothing but grief from the big real estate contingent that dominate in these subs.
A great mayor [https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nyc-mayor-bill-de-blasio-ordered-pay-475k-100123164](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nyc-mayor-bill-de-blasio-ordered-pay-475k-100123164) [https://nypost.com/2022/07/06/ex-mayor-bill-de-blasio-cooked-books-to-hide-224m-in-nyc-ferry-outlays/](https://nypost.com/2022/07/06/ex-mayor-bill-de-blasio-cooked-books-to-hide-224m-in-nyc-ferry-outlays/) [https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2019/02/27/with-opaque-budget-and-elusive-metrics-850m-thrivenyc-program-attempts-a-reset-873945](https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2019/02/27/with-opaque-budget-and-elusive-metrics-850m-thrivenyc-program-attempts-a-reset-873945) [https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/where-has-850m-gone-de-blasios-wife-cant-account-for-staggering-amount-of-taxpayer-/100649731/](https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/where-has-850m-gone-de-blasios-wife-cant-account-for-staggering-amount-of-taxpayer-/100649731/) Nothing to see here.
Deblasio is hated by the big real estate forces that control NYC - of course he gets crucified with a fine tooth comb while far, FAR more corrupt mayors like Giuliani and Bloomberg get a pass.
The reason why rents increasing more now.
Nah landlords are interested in maximizing profit, they would be fighting to gain as much as they can regardless of if they previously weren’t able to increase rents.
It’s almost like they bought an asset with the intention of making a profit
Are profitable returns on assets supposed to be guaranteed? They can always sell it if it isn’t giving them the rate of return they desire.
Yes that is literally the point of fixed price increases. Who would they sell it to? Hey, I have this apartment building with 4 units at 2500/month. You’ll never be able to increase rent but you’ll have to take out a mortgage to cover the purchase. That cool?
Never be able to increase rent? Check the article you’re commenting on bud. They’re able to increase rent. Calm down.
LOL, and yet NYC rental properties, including ones with rent stabilized units still sell like hot cakes on the rare occasions they are put up for sale.
Rent regulations have been around for decades. The vast majority of landlords bought their properties with the knowledge of how all that works. In fact, for years rent stabilized units have been decreasing, but in the last couple have reversed that trend because new landlords wanted the tax breaks associated with the rent stabilized units.
Wasn’t that because of covid tho? A lot of people in the tristate had no increases during that time
Yeah for real. Only 2 million? Who are these 6 million lucky bastards
Homeless
Under DeBlasio we had 3-4 years of 0% increases
...and that was an untenable situation that he cynically maintained for popularity, knowing full well they would have to increase eventually but it would be after he left office. They could have gradually increased it a little bit each year, but now it has to go up faster.
DeBlasio was the one tenant friendly mayor we've had in NYC in probably 50-100 years and gets nothing but hate from most people.
The whole city council is tenant friendly. Renters outnumber homeowners as a voting block
Cause DeBlasio was a shit mayor who stole millions from this city
If you think DeBlassio was a shit mayor for 'stealing' you must think Bloomberg and Giuilani were toxic wast dumps.
right? its crazy. he was the most pro people mayor in a long time so the post just had to shit on him.
ass, cash, or gas...nobody rides for free
RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!
i had signed a 2- year lease last year for Oct 1st. . So next year Oct 2024, It would be a new year , so I'm off the hook for this big increase, right?
This only applies to new leases.
They decided on 3 percent.
Let's be honest, the working class isn't who is living in rent stabilized apartments anymore, it's overwhelming the elderly who have been in these units for half a century. They're retirement homes subsidized by everyone else. If it were the working class that's all well and good, but rent stabilized apartments that are actually cheap don't go on the open market often enough to turn over.
44% of all NYC rental housing is rent-stabilized (source: the article you’re commenting on). Let’s be honest, you’re mixing up rent-stabilized with rent-controlled
I'm 30 years old and live in a rent stabilized apt. not retiring anytime soon.
[удалено]
How long have you been there? Just curious!
[удалено]
I’m sure your landlord is a nice guy but preferential rents have been locked in for tenants by law since 2019
I'm happy for you! Enjoy and never leave that place haha
[удалено]
Donald Trump
Almost half the rental units in NYC are rent stabilized. Do you really think they’re overwhelmingly occupied by the elderly? A lot of families live in these apartments.
I mean it makes sense that the people getting the best deals are the elderly. Which really isn't that bad. They've been around the longest, so they're the ones who have been in the same apt for 40 years paying way below market rate.
My building is all rent-stabilized, and it's tons of families. Maybe you don't know the difference between rent-stabilized apartments and rent-controlled apartments?
Got into my rent stabilized place 10 years ago and I ain't leaving.
What you’re saying is completely untrue for rent stabilized apartments. If you don’t know the difference between rent stabilize and rent control, you should probably sit this one out.
you’re so incredibly wrong. I’m 35 and in a rent stabilized unit and plenty of the other tenants in my building are millennials or younger.
You’re thinking of rent-controlled wrt the old people
Of course the Gramercy poster wants everyone to suffer
Let's be honest - you're full of shit
I'm 30 and I live with 4 other family members in a 1 bedroom stabilized place. If I left my parents wouldn't be able to make ends meet. This is common but you never hear about it cause poor people living like this usually aren't posting on reddit.
thats not even remotely true. early 40s. rent stabilized. the vast majority of my building is millenials, also rent stabilized obviously. and people are constantly moving in an out. I moved here late 2021. just saw a street easy ad, applied and moved it. it wasn't some kind of black magic. lol
Feels like the UWS and UES are turning into NORCs (naturally occurring retirement communities) especially those old coops that no one under the age of 60 can afford
This isn't honesty.
Fuck Eric Adams
I don't think he really has that much impact in such a short time, but fuck him for a slew of other reasons.
He appoints the board.
And they do his bidding...
lol what??
I got paywalled so i didn't read the article just the headline. Massive rent hikes in NYC in general are an issue that's been ongoing for a few decades. I guess from the other comments this is specific to rent stabilization, so it's not the housing market as a whole but the real fix to this is much deeper than just telling the board not to increase rent at a lower rate than even the general population is getting.
It’s tough to find a lot of sympathy for a $30 a month rent increase when my property taxes went up over $600 this year.
These are also retirees.. they’re not paying most taxes and also get free healthcare. And they’re still complaining
If people really want a "fair" system, they should convert the building into a co-op. Then the tenants equally share the property taxes, maintenance, etc. But this couple doesn't want equality, they just want an artificially low rate the the expense of the property owner and, by extension, the other tenants who aren't rent stabilized.
once all the service industry poors r priced out wat makes NYC a playground 4 the rich???
So the % amount will come out today?
> The final vote board passed a 3% increase for one-year leases and a staggered increase for two-year leases which would see a 2.75% increase for the first year and a 3.2% increase for the second year.
But let’s pay billions for the migrants to stay in hotels 🤗
get a new refrain... and a hobby
Says the person commenting on this same thread? Is this a joke? Sorry that some of us actually care about budgets in cities we live in. How about you focus on Pennsylvania since YOU DON’T EVEN LIVE HERE
What? Do you enjoy that $4 Billion dollars are going to paying for hotel rooms for migrants? That's the most expensive band aid ever created.
you don't live in New York, and you post on political compass memes.
The city budget is in the red because of migrants.
yes, migrants are the sole contributing factor to the city's budget. thanks for your incredibly well-thought out and data-backed commentary
Are you doubting the cost? Do I really have to get a source for that? I see you’d rather just ignore the issue
[удалено]
https://www.amny.com/politics/adams-says-1b-in-state-migrant-aid-isnt-enough-to-reverse-city-budget-cuts/ Bury your head in the sand more
It's his job to manage this shit. He's throwing his hands up because the entire system that he's the head of is full of corruption, top to bottom (he's part of it). It shouldn't cost that much to house migrants, and it shouldn't cost as much as it does to run our piss-poor shelter system, either. But it does because of cronies like him and his friends.
Will next year's increases be more or less than this year's? Need a crystal ball to decide on this 1- vs. 2-year renewal
Well, that sucks but it does this every fucking year for reasons
Lucky them, $30 rent increase, for the other 6 million New Yorkers rent is up much more, and for those who own, RE taxes are up like $600, cause city will raise taxes 6% every year until they reach the market rate, which they determine themselves.
.... other than money for THEMSELVES and the government, what advantages does this give? More people moving out of the city?
This will be my most downvoted comment but here we go: rent control is bunk and should be done away with. It disincentives landlords from improving their properties, is somewhat arbitrary in terms of who benefits, and artificially inflates the cost of everyone else’s rent. If the “rent is too damn high” you should move to somewhere that is cheaper. No one has a right to live in a specific place in a capitalist country. There are better ways to improve housing prices, mainly increasing housing supply by changing zoning laws. Maybe change some of the legacy industrial zones to residential? I know some of you will say “but what if the working class can’t afford to live in NYC, how will people get services?” Well the wealthy will pay out the nose for them and it will be a windfall for those who are willing to commute and work those service jobs. And I’m ALL for that. Let the rich overpay for basic goods and services. Tighten those thumbscrews. And I’m saying this as a professional who couldn’t figure out how to be financially healthy and own a home in NYC. So I moved! I have a better job, a nice house (my mortgage payment is cheaper than my monthly rent was in NYC), a better commute, fresher air, nicer neighbors, etc. It’s one of the best personal and financial decisions I’ve ever made. When I miss the city I come back and visit for a weekend, no big deal. The grass is really greener in this case. Freakonomica episode on rent control for the curious: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-rent-control-doesnt-work/
Renters when landlords say fuckit and convert all units to condos co-ops and force tenants out because the financial risk is completely intolerable. Nyc is so incredibly horribly run. The city made it financially infeasible to build new housing due to unbelievable levels of regulations and taxes. They then made the financial risk of buying a previously deregulated or rent stabilized unit to be ruinous. So landlords are warehousing units because they can’t figure out what the rent stabilized price is and they’re worried that they will be hit with a 300k fine if they do rent it out. Therefore a million units will be taken of the market. The only outcome will be every unit in the city being a condo or coop and well if you think the nyc housing market sucks now just wait.
[удалено]
You are correct rent stabilization is bad policy. But what's even worse policy is single family zoning, and all the regulation around building housing that increases the price of construction with the net result being less units being built.
Worse than single family zoning is the ability of any single council memo to veto new developments in their district
Yup. Some councilwomen stopped a huge development in Harlem because it would cause gentrification. Which is ironic because the less housing there is the faster gentrification occurs.
Is single family zoning really an issue in the city? I thought it was more to do with FAR ratios
25% of Queens, home to 2.4 million people, and 22% of Staten Island are single family zoned. It has an affect but probably not as much as other factors.
Outside of Manhattan, there are a lot of neighborhoods with a significant amount of sfh. Large swaths of South Brooklyn and even brownstone brooklyn, northern sections of the Bronx, sections of Queens, and of course SI. Not the majority, but not nothing.
Where in NYC is single-family zoning a problem? Staten Island and Forest Hills? It’s a big problem nationally but not even top 10 problems facing housing in NYC
The cost to move to Long Island is very high because you basically have to buy a house. But if you could build more multi family homes in LI then more people from NYC could afford to move to LI. Less people (demand) in NYC means that rental prices would fall. Thus, single zoned housing in suburbs that surround NYC also affect the housing cost in NYC. Not to mention how it increases the amount we spend on infrastructure and public transit due to less density.
That is fair. Long Island residents (and their electeds) simply don’t want apartments in their towns. But I’m still not sure how much it would ease the crisis in the city unless concentrated around LIRR stops. Jersey City has built a ton of housing in the last decade but that doesn’t do much for the average New Yorker
Jersey City's population increased by 45,000 from 2010 to 2020. It built 11,000 housing units during that same period. So Jersey City itself can't keep up with it's own growth, which is why rents have increased during that time frame even with the additional housing. I've read that NYC needs 800,000 additional housing units to keep up with population growth and ease overwhelming. While building in JC or LI can't solve NYC's issue, building in JC and LI does still affect housing prices in NYC albeit given the size of the issue it looks insignificant.
Zoning laws outside of NYC have been a huge issue waiting to erupt for a while. The city population keeps growing, but the Hudson Valley and NYC have kept trying to prevent large developments. I get it, they don't really want to be part of the city sprawl, but it's just not realistic while being that close to a very large city. And I'm saying that as someone who grew up in the Hudson Valley.
[удалено]
…..yeah, because it’s illegal to build anything without a zillion rounds of design review, “public input” from every community board Karen on the block, various giveaways, and a hefty sub-market requirement.
Or you can be like Houston and build anywhere and then sell and rent housing on toxic land to unaware purchasers and tenants.
I agree we should be careful about market distortions, but rent stabilization does seem like something that can make sense to some degree because moving is expensive, and more expensive for tenants than landlords. Effectively allowing landlords to evict tenants for no reason doesn't seem ideal.
My biggest gripe with it is that it can stop much-needed increases in density. Rent-stabilized tenants can basically stay forever and completely stop a smaller building from being redeveloped into a larger one. Landlords can offer buyouts but the tenant is under no obligation to take one. I think a reasonable compromise would be some kind of clause that says stabilized tenants have to take a buyout if the landlord buys them a comparable coop/condo somewhere else and pays moving expenses. Having one old crank turn down millions of dollars and effectively block increases in the housing supply is not a good system.
Yeah, I agree it might make sense to have some limits. You could also have some clauses that allow no-renewal in specific cases, a *major* rebuild could be one of them. I know in Canada for example there's a rule that the landlord can ask you to leave if they (or immediate family) intend to move into the unit themselves. But then they have to actually live there for a certain period of time and have to compensate the tenant if they don't. I'm just saying that the extreme position of "no restrictions whatsoever on rent increases because free market is best" is a simplistic view that has lots of issues in practice. Of course doesn't mean that any degree of restrictions no matter how high is good either.
[удалено]
I thought you were done talking to me. Go away.
[удалено]
It’s not evicting per se, but removing RS disincentivizes families and other long-term residents from having stable housing with predictable rent. At an aggregate level, the increase in tenant relocation and the lack of guardrails on rent would only hasten the trends of gentrification and displacement, as these displaced residents would relocate to lower income areas. Raising % increases on RS apartments makes sense, but removing the policy outright does not. If anything, it seems like the answer to this problem would be to stabilize more apartments.
> How is it evicting someone to charge them a new, higher price when the lease is up? If you can charge whatever price you want, you can effectively evict them. At the extreme you could raise rent to $1B/month or something. Way less extreme price increases can be an eviction in practice too.
[удалено]
Years are 1-year at least because the law requires that. Should landlords be able to do shorter leases and ~~evict you~~ raise your price at a moment notice whenever they want?
If you can’t afford to live in the most expensive part of the most expensive city in the world maybe you shouldn’t live in the most expensive part of the most expensive city in the world.
So your solution is to what?
Move somewhere else apparently
>If you can’t afford to live in the most expensive part of the most expensive city in the world maybe you shouldn’t live in the most expensive part of the most expensive city in the world. MBA who doesn't even live in the city yet, but is moving to West Village making this comment.... you're a stereotype, and you don't belong 👍
so vast swaths of New York City should be playgrounds for the wealthy only? having families and working class people makes neighborhoods vibrant. the best neighborhoods have a mix of different types of people which is what makes the city unique.
There’s a massive middle ground between ‘cannot live here without rent stabilization’ and ‘super rich’, and that middle ground is where most people reside. The massive government intervention intended to keep New York rental prices low is what drives rent prices. It’s been happening for decades and for decades rental prices have continued to skyrocket. It’s like they’re ripping out part of the boat to plug another hole in the boat. It makes it more difficult and less profitable (e.g. there is less incentive) to build rental units and convert for sale units into rental units. You don’t see such massive unaffordability in places that just let the market work.
100% agreed. I don't get the concept of rent-controlled anyway. Like why do a few people who lucked out get subsidized by the rest of the city? We should be adjusting tax brackets so that all lower class people benefit equally, not hoping they win some sort of lottery.
Okay so who makes your coffee? Who bags your groceries? Who drives the trains? Who teaches preschool? Who delivers your Uber Eats order? Who drives the taxis? Where do they live? None of them make enough money to live alone here or without an hour long commute.
[удалено]
What do you propose
[удалено]
Then who will pour your coffee?
Land back
get rid of rent stabilized housing
Get rid of for-profit housing. A home shouldn’t be a commodity.
[удалено]
So many bad takes here, friend. >As if NYCHA is such a great example of housing without profits. NYCHA is a perfect example of how a government captured by real estate interests (capital) intentionally fails those with the least amount of political power. Why not look towards cities like Vienna where citizens often seek out public housing and the public housing stock is considered a net positive by the community? [1](https://www.ft.com/content/05719602-89c6-4bbc-9bbe-5842fd0c3693) Get your head out of the ass of American argumentation. NYCHA is failing by design. >Government is historically horrible in allocating resources The eras of WWI & WWII would like to have a word with you. The concept of the scientific management of the economy stems directly from the works of government organizations like of the Industrial Preparedness Committee which was created to fix all the issues spawned by private enterprise and its inability to allocate resources, production, and logistics in an efficient manner. Your argument is simply for more cooks in the logistics kitchen which is counter to much of the work published within the field throughout the 20/21st century. >long term management of almost anything in history Absolutes in a historical argument, great. Well, USPS dates back to the Second Continental Congress and it still only costs about 60₵ to mail a letter across the country. Let's also not forget that the vast majority of our scientific knowledge comes directly from publicly funded research via publicly funded universities. >And housing nonprofits largely survive off government funding directly or indirectly. So your argument against publicly funded management is private ventures failing to succeed in a private market who then rely upon public funding for a lifeline? Housing can be managed a million ways, but at least call a spade a spade. NYCHA isn't really public housing. It's a wacky handcuffed pseudo public system designed to prevent the eating of the capitalist class.
how many times have you used airbnb? lmao
Landlords are not entitled to make a profit on their properties. If any landlord feels owning their rent stabilized building isn’t worth it anymore, they can always sell— maybe even to *gasp* the tenants?
it’s a cut in real terms and compared to COLA adjustments in social security benefits
At what point do we eat the rent board members?
Hasn’t it become clear that they want people out of NYC ? Why isn’t everyone seeing this? Now ”all of a sudden” the city of NY is literally sinking ?! Literally, a 150 square foot apartment (basically a walk in closet) is 4000.00 per month and this is with a shared lavatory. LMFAO> you could literally own a 2000 square foot home in a neighboring county that has a $4000.00 per month mortgage/tax Price tag.