Rent Board Chief on Shifting Onus from Landlords
The Observer ran an interesting interview yesterday with the head of the Rent Guidelines Board, Marvin Markus, that lays out some of the common-sense problems with rent control and stabilization. If we as a society deem it worthwhile to subsidize certain people (and clearly there are lots of reasons to do so), then the cost…
The Observer ran an interesting interview yesterday with the head of the Rent Guidelines Board, Marvin Markus, that lays out some of the common-sense problems with rent control and stabilization. If we as a society deem it worthwhile to subsidize certain people (and clearly there are lots of reasons to do so), then the cost should be borne by society as a whole not individual landlords, argues Markus. “There are poor tenants, they should be protected, but the individual owner is not the one that should protect them. The population at large clearly should be the ones footing the bill,” he says. And how would be do that? “One suggestion is a rent tax/surcharge of some limited amount, on all rents in the city … and all co-op and condo charges in the city. … It’s very important for the city of New York that there be a mixed income base—from an economic standpoint; from a social standpoint—and we want to make sure, I want to make sure, that that continues.” While landlords make easy political targets, it’s hard to make any rational arguments in favor of the current system: Lifetime entitlements makes no sense at all; nor does a system that dis-incentivizes landlords from maintaining the housing stock.
Rent Board Chief Markus Pleads for ‘Rationality’ [NY Observer]
Photo from the Tenement Museum
“What,
That’s a good point — one that hasn’t been mentioned yet on this thread.”
Ironballs I walk or drive into Downtown Brooklyn almost everyday and the amount of Condo construction is Mind-Blowing! Plus let’s not forget Bloomberg gave out plenty of Tax-Breaks to these Assheads to build but with the Stuyvesant Town?Cooper Village ruling if the Condos go rental they may be subjected to Rent Stabilization laws! How in the hell are they going to recoup the MONEY?????!!! A Asshead living in the Toren paying 900.00 a month??? That will put massive pressure on other Homedebters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end…
This is my new Pet-Peeve!
What,
That’s a good point — one that hasn’t been mentioned yet on this thread.
As a landlord, I’ve noticed rent stabilized tenants are far more amenable to buyouts these days, since it’s much more affordable than it used to be for them to find housing elsewhere.
On the other hand, rent controlled tenants still respond with a cold blank stare when I offer them money — which makes sense since where else can somebody rent an apartment for less than $125/mo? Rent control rents are a fraction of what maintenance charges would be if the tenants OWNED instead of rented.
Rent controled folks really are supported completely by their landlords. As a longtime landlord, I’ve never once received a thank-you note from a rent controlled tenant, even though I’ve renovated their hallways, replaced their boilers and roofs, sweated over minute details like garbage collection and rodent control, etc., for years.
And why again is it that NYC can’t have a normal free market rental market like every other city in the country?
Why again does this city need a web of “rent laws” to supposedly protect the “working class” while nearly every other city has lower rents AND no rent laws at all.
Riddle me this???!!! What is going to happen when all the Condos come online latter this year??????!!!!!! I have one answer: They will compete for renters!!! Rent Stabilization and Rent Control will be moot!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end…
Riddle me this???!!! What is going to happen when all the Condos come online latter this year??????!!!!!! I have one answer: They will compete for renters!!! Rent Stabilization and Rent Control will be moot!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end…
“it’s hard to make any rational arguments in favor of the current system: Lifetime entitlements makes no sense at all” Where does he think he is Seattle? In a rational city, Suburban Dude would set policy,\.
East New York: FYI I doubt Patterson/Rangel have rent controlled apts, it’s most likely stabilized and apart from Rangel using one of those apts as an office the only other thing that may be appropriate is if they have made more than 175k in 2 consecutive years.
Well Ironballs, that’s exactly what may happen and I suspect many Landlords may regret what they’re wishing for. You being the exception, I’m tired of hearing many (esp. larger) landlords inaccurately say that they “lose” money on their rent-stabilized apts. The RSA has never, EVER, voted for a rent freeze or decrease in over 30 years, even though rents have gone up way beyond inflation in that time frame. Like I said, rent stabilization didn’t happen overnight, if a landlord thinks he/she is losing money on their good faith investment then they should get out of the business. FSRQ, EXACTLY, that’s what I’m saying, the idea behind rent stabilization was a noble one but its execution was flawed, and it has been abused by both sides. It’s fundamentally UN American for the State to mandate an “entitlement” and then put 100% of the burden on a private business. Right now, affordable housing in NYC is either for the very rich or the very poor. Housing for the working/middle class is in crisis. It’s up to the city and its renters to take control and address this directly.
Benson – no price controls – its simple –
100% vacancy decontrol and no succession rights except to spouses – with re-stabilization on all marketrate apartments;
Then yearly increases based on some inflation number (maybe based on Cola+fuel prices+taxes)
Yes long-time residents (especially in areas with high rent inflation) may eventually have apts far below market – so what….the alternative is to force them to move – which disrupts neighborhoods and communities….once they move or die, the apartment goes back to market.