Some people can never have enough money. They are often very productive people, but they need to be told that yes, you can have too much money.
29
@Jim Houghton Please tell us when you have too much money. Then feel free to impose that opinion on others. 1984.
17
@B Actually, I do. Not mega, but more than I need. I give a lot of it away.
33
This same thinking, on the part of politicians, is what brought the ANC to it's ultimate retort to landowners in South Africa. The tail is now wagging the dog. Reparations to follow?
4
Governor Cuomo, I voted for your father each time he ran and I voted for you. On behalf of the working people of New York City, I thank you.
22
The aristocracy are always the last to figure it out.
23
These developers go to sleep at night counting the numbers of $238,000,000 apartments they can squeeze into their next high-rise by including 160 foot mechanical voids at the base of the building. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/billionaire-ken-griffins-real-estate-shopping-sprees-continues-.html
They have no clue that the median household income in NYC is $61,000. A household with that income can afford a home priced no more than $122,000! https://homeguides.sfgate.com/much-mortgage-can-afford-income-60000-92799.html Reining in this inequality runaway train is essential, but it's going to make a lot of fat cats squeal. Loudly.
23
First Thought : Mario is biting the hand that financed his political career
Second Thought: There is method to his madness - he's positioning himself for a 2014 presidential run
8
So what they're in shock. these landlords need to be in jail. A long wrong has been righted. Evicting long term tenants illegally should result in jail time, it hasn't. Now maybe low income, middle income tenats can sleep in their roach infested apartments a little better. This too need so be addressed- vermin infestation.
22
On the legislature's should be the zoning of Riker's island. The only reason that closing the jail has gotten any traction is that developers are already salivating over the prospect of turning the island into yet another luxury enclave. Anyone who thinks that Extell, the Related Companies, and Vornado don't already have plans on the table must have been in a coma for the last 30 years. Before this can happen, we must insure that the island is used for everyone's welfare, not just a few inbred families.
16
Walk around the city. See people living on the sidewalks and in the parks. Each one has a unique life story. But in many of those stories, there are greedy, gouger landlords who ran them out of their homes.
21
So here’s a thought experiment. Suppose there was no rent control— would rents go up, down, or stay the same?
Here’s another one— suppose landlords decided that since they couldn’t raise rents, they would just cash out before things got worse. Who would they sell to: US investors who may be concerned about playing by the rules or Chinese ones who don’t care about rules.
New York, you get the lifestyle you voted for.
9
I live in a rent stabilized building, one of the 260,000 in NYC. My landlord has never fixed anything in my apartment before this law. He will not fix anything after this law. I suspect the situation in the other 260,000 rent stabilized apartments is the same.
26
@Rick Schricter If only you had the opportunity to pay a little more money and move to a nicer apartment, but sadly the next level up is probably a 4k a month luxury building. Isn't it weird that despite all the demand there is hardly accomodation in the middle? Well, it is a direct result of the rent control mechanism. High end apartments are the only way to subsidize these low income buildings. Sorry to break it to you but mathematics is kinda of definitive.
21
The truth is somewhere in the middle. The stories about a terrible rundown apartment you read here is just that, some data points. A home is terribly personal, but laws can only be made by looking at a lot of data not some personal horror stories. It doesn’t mean the stories aren’t true.
As a landlord, not in NYC, it’s just like any investor. I do like my tenants and treat them well, including dropping off a gift basket every holiday, including a bottle of wine.
What people need to understand, and I’m not talking to the militant anti-landlord people that are out there and reading this, as there are people who don’t like their landlord from the moment they meet them, and I’ve seen this myself and it surprises me how hostile tenants can be when you first get introduced... it’s odd.. anyways, what you need to understand is we’re for the most part just normal people with an investment and we’re not the Durst family, etc. If you put money in the stock market based on getting the best return and you don’t buy stocks with low returns just because you think the company is making the world an awesome place, welcome. You’re one of us. You don’t want to get low returns in the stock market; you want to earn $$ for the money you borrow and as much as you can based on the law. The same way you buy stocks to maximize your money.
I don’t know the NYC, but I do know investors and if a property starts generating a lot less income you’ll want to cut expenses.
21
I'm by no means pro-landlord (an investor bought my 1910 tenement a few years ago, terminated my preferential rent, increased my rent 60% at renewal, which forced me out, and then illegally gut-renovated the apartment at falsified cost), but there seems to be a real math problem with these new regulations.
No more vacancy increase. No more longevity bonus. IAIs capped at $15,000, which sunset after 30 years (so the rent would presumably be rolled back?). MCIs capped and also sunset after 30 years.
Meanwhile tenant advocates want rent rollbacks, or 1% annual increases, but property taxes and sewage rates, not to mention general inflation, are a lot more than that. So there's a long term math problem there.
It also means finding a stabilized apartment will be a total lottery now, particularly in the case of long term tenant vacancies. That apartment may have been renting for $800 because somebody was living there for decades, but now there's no vacancy, or longevity increase, and the IAI is capped, so what's the incentive to even renovate it when somebody will scoop it up at its now legally capped low rent? No more buyouts. It also freezes regulated buildings in place, and prevents denser development.
Rent stabilization should provide pricing stabilization, and help strengthen communities by not pricing people out, but also provide decent housing stock that's well maintained. Look at NYCHA for an example of where rents don't cover expenses (along with mismanagement).
20
When apartments rent for amounts under the cost to carry them -- other tenants have to make up the difference. Market rent in NYC is above what it should be ... also -- reduce cash flow from rents and the building value drops.
Lower rents .. more restrictions -- and the city and state wants to increase taxes !
Frankly -- I hope we get lots of these social democrats. The faster they get the laws they want -- the quicker some places will crash and burn and we can save the rest of the country.
16
Wait until Elizabeth Warren is elected. These robber barons ain’t seen nothing yet!
14
The argument that rent controlled areas suffer from a lack of affordable housing because of rent control discouraging landlords from adding more units is Econ 101 over simplified economics. It's just not a true way to predict the value of rent control.
In many places like New York City or the more appealing locations along the coasts to live, there is little chance of adding a lot of new housing. The land and public utilities are used to the maximum. Any new additions will be very costly and require a lot of new infrastructure to support. So the market is serving a restrict supply no matter what. That means landlords have the opportunity to raise rents just on the demand, alone. The only way to assure that housing can remain affordable really is by rent control.
9
@Casual Observer, your analysis is much too casual to be taken seriously. Have you been to New York and looked up? There is no shortage of 'land' here. The problem is Rent Control, labor laws, and zoning restriction have taken 57% of all available housing stock off the market and made construction of any future affordable housing untenable. Developers, to make any money, have to target the absolute top of the market.
18
@Casual Observer Sure, but the question is what kind of rent control. The issue with this form of rent control is that it doesn't really change the underlying dynamics of the housing market.
It freezes some rents in amber (but mostly in lower-income neighborhoods), while allowing free-market rents to shoot even higher. It stabilizes rents for existing tenants in expensive neighborhoods, but since there's no means testing in our system here, these units will be replaced by wealthy tenants once the unit vacates. (If I'm the landlord, you better believe I'm picking the highest income applicant).
And finally, as I've mentioned below in another comment, the new laws disincentivize new rental housing construction relative to new condominium construction because in New York it's almost impossible to build new rental housing without a tax abatement (421a) that mandates 30 years of rent stabilization.
10
The fact is, it's easy to rent a rent-stabilized apartment in the city. Always has been. A cursory Streeteasy search shows hundreds of stabilized units. So what's with all these comments about how it's impossible to get a stabilized unit? Oh yeah - these rent-stabilized units are in neighborhoods where younger and higher-earning residents don't want to live. They're in the Bronx. They're in eastern Brooklyn. They're far from job centers and often in relatively high-crime areas, with few amenities to speak of.
That fabled, cheap rent stabilized unit in the West Village or Williamsburg will probably never hit the market again once it's vacated; it'll be rented to a friend of the landlord, or maybe held vacant while the landlord waits out the rest of the vacancies so he can convert the building to condominiums. And even if it does hit the market, it'll be rented to the highest-income applicant. This law is simply poorly conceived.
A better idea would have been universal rent control, like Oregon just passed. In this model, all tenants have access to a renewal lease with a capped rent increase, but the unit rent can float to market once the unit is vacated. A MUCH better system to ensure stabilization AND maintenance of the housing stock.
12
The oligarchs will fight tooth and nail to maintain their hold on government and are stunned when laws are made in favor of the people. This is only the beginning, there is a long way to go. Money out of politics should be the ultimate goal, let the voters decide their future.
After decades of Social Democrats leading government in Sweden a more recent coalition of free market supporters have thrown the housing market in Stockholm into chaos, with not enough buyers for over-priced luxury units that stand empty and not enough housing for those with more modest income. Banks are reluctant to approve mortgage applications because they predict diminished value of the luxury housing. There is a push now by government to build more affordable housing and offer more rent subsidies, which was the norm in the recent past. Sweden does not like predatory capitalism after all.
6
NY has been meddling in rent for years, and the result has been high rents and mediocre apartments. So the solution is to meddle even more in rent, but expect a different outcome?
16
"build affordable apartments" shows up in almost every NYT real estate article. Would someone please define what is a affordable NYC rental? Each time we visit NYC, a "good" one bedroom jumps from $3,000 to $4,000, then $5,000, upwards.
10
Will this help NYCHA Apartment Tenants? I hope so, as a College student it's difficult to raise money...
1
Disabuse me if I'm wrong. But as much as I sympathize with renters in NYC, I can't help but think that this will only lead to a housing shortage.
There will be less incentive for landlords to rent out their apartments, causing them to either move back into their own apartment or sell it entirely once the lease is up.
Additionally, people who may have rented a room in their home to someone will now not do so as it isn't worth the cost.
All of the above, as well as less incentive for developers to build new apartment buildings, seems like an economic disaster waiting to happen. It may work for the next few years, but I don't think it will be sustainable in the long-term.
17
To say that the real estate industry was “trounced” is quite an exaggeration. These are modest gains for tenants, no matter how hard fought.
On the other hand, limiting security deposits to one month’s rent is counterproductive, as it will almost certainly drive small landlords from the market. While many departing tenants leave nothing more than wear and tear in their wake, others do extensive damage and only institutional landlords will be able to absorb the often very expensive bills to remediate damaged units. One step forward, two steps back?
5
“From 2010 until last month, a prominent landlord group, the Rent Stabilization Association, donated more than $800,000 to the campaign committee for State Senate Republicans. In the same time period, the group spent just $25,000 on State Senate Democrats.”
Huh. Who’s for sale?
5
I was told by a close friend of one of the gentlemen named in this article that “commercial real estate is the most corrupt industry in America - other than Hedge Funds.”
We now know what they were talking about.
11
Bernie Sanders is probably my least favorite in the Democratic race. But every time some one like Trump’s friend Richard Lefrak whines about socialism I’m thinking what’s happening is probably a good thing.
9
This legislation is dumb, very dumb, and even dumber. While landlord groups probably have overreached at times with the NY legislature and some reforms might be helpful, this legislation is way over the top and counterproductive. Contrary to the state of mind of most New Yorkers, a landlord owns an apartment, not the tenant, and most landlords do the right thing. Tenants are entitled to protections from the few abusive landlords (just as landlords should be entitled to protection from the few abusive tenants), but legislation precluding a landlord from making a reasonable profit or any profit at all is nonsensical. Operating in NYC is incredibly expensive and landlords' costs for taxes, insurance, water, utilities, repair and maintenance, etc. continue to increase at rates far in excess of the rent increases these laws will permit in the future. And that does not even factor in the age and consequential need for renovation of NYC's regulated housing stock or the costs to landlords when interest rates finally rise to more normal levels. Moreover, why should individual landlords subsidize the lucky tenants in regulated apartments who might or might not be worthy of such subsidies? Let all apartments be rented at market rates and use the consequential tax receipt increases to subsidize those tenants who are truly worthy while watching the housing stock rise in both quality and quantity.
23
NY's current rent control/subsidy (rent regulation) program began in 1943. It is the longest-running in the United States. As of 2017, 57% of NYC apt's were rent controlled or stabilized (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York). These apts generally are never available to the public. Their occupants never leave them and in many cases they get handed down to family members, keeping them "off the market" for generations.
Why are unregulated rents are so high in nyc? Because 57% of the apts are not available to the public. Think supply vs demand. Supply low, demand high. Demand high, price high.
Why are conditions in regulated apts not up to standards? Because regulated rents are so low owners cannot afford to fix all the maintenance issues, doing so would put them in a loss situation.
Want to lower overpriced nyc rents and improve conditions at the same time? Eliminate this antiquated/obsolete concept of rent regulation. That will put the 57% of the total nyc apts unavailable to the public back on the market. More supply, demand decreases. Less demand, lower cost. Yes, rent regulated apts will increase, but non-regulated apts will decrease and a lower overall "fair market" rent will prevail.
Yes, there needs to be a phase in and some rules. Retired on fixed low income? You can keep it until your death but no handing down. Income over a certain amount? You're out. Own a 2nd home? Out. Other rules necessary but the system needs to go.
26
I’ve always assumed capitalism was the best way to structure an economic system. But as I age and come to understand how economic systems actually function, I’ve found myself drifting to the left. I’ve long since been sold on the idea that access to healthcare is a fundamental right, that there shouldn’t be a profit motive involved when people’s lives are on the line. But isn’t shelter also a basic need? And food for that matter. Is it right to chase profits in any industry that caters to peoples’ fundamental needs?
New York has a housing crisis. Just like San Francisco (my home town), and a lot of major US cities. Commercial developers bloat the rental markets with expensive units that price out most of the people who actually keep the cities running. If we really want to tackle the housing crisis gripping our cities, maybe we need to change our assumptions on what is and isn’t acceptable forms of capitalism. Landlords in New York are complaining about losing out on profits for their properties, but I’m not convinced people’s basic needs should be a source of profit to begin with.
14
These laws do not increase available apartments by even one .
The fundamental reality stays the same . There are still dozens maybe hundreds of would be renters for each "affordable" apartment that becomes available in NYC.
It is only a question of how we as a society choose to distribute this limited resource .
We could choose to ration it so everyone at least gets a room the size of a closet .
We could choose to give it to those who need it most , perhaps for work .
We could choose to rotate and give everyone a chance especially young people and new comers .
Instead what we have done in effect is distribute by first come first served and everyone else can wait on a perpetual waiting list .
Why is this fair ?
Maybe allowing market rent has some merits after all .
Market rent at least gives others a chance as well . Maybe some young people would need to double up .
Perhaps they can only afford this for a number of years and not more. But at least they got a chance .
Market rent would encourage someone who is retired to relocate and make room for someone who travels hours each day to work .
Market rent may encourage someone with 3 bedrooms to move once the kids are grown and make way for another growing family .
Rent control is a win for the "first come "one person on the inside at the expense of 100 people on the outside .
18
The article does not mention the effect which these laws will have on the Office of Rent Administration (ORA) . The Office of Rent Administration administers programs that help to preserve affordable housing. In support of New York's rent regulation, the two main programs are known as rent control and rent stabilization. see https://hcr.ny.gov/office-rent-administration-ora
I worked at ORA for about 23 years processing tenant complaints about rent overcharges and decreases in apartment and building wide services. Filing a compliant with ORA is better than going to court for most tenants.And the website is very informative. Hopefully, ORA will get increased staffing, since there have many retirements since I left the agency in 2013. I am surprised that this article didn't mention ORA
4
Believe it or not, there are people out there that are strongly against rent regulations because we are for more affordable housing. The result of the current stabilization and control regulation is decrease the supply of affordable housing and increase the price of non-regulated housing.
If you are one of the lucky few that has gotten a rent controlled or stabilized apartment, congratulations. However, you should understand that your taking advantage of this regulation is hurting people just like you and people who may not be as well off as you.
Under the current regulatory scheme, what developer in their right mind will ever voluntarily build affordable rental units unless compelled to by the City (in order to build market rate housing which they can profit from)?
The better scheme would (i) provide payments to landlords to subsidize rents (i.e., put total price above market equilibrium to incentivize providing more units); (ii) provide easy ways to remove problematic tenants (increase housing supply for others and decrease transactional friction); (iii) increase access to financing for new construction (increase supply); and (iv) lower standards for low priced units (e.g., decrease marginal cost).
11
@JSD logic doesn’t work in actual real estate market in NYC. First off, land cost + construction costs make it difficult to impossible to build affordable housing absent subsidy—even if the land is free. Second, many (if not most) rent stabilized units are in buildings that are never actually going to be torn and replaced (think of six-story elevator buildings in Pelham Parkway in the Bronx or in Flatbush) so I think its questionable whether stabilized units actually decrease housing production.
3
I sympathize with the real estate barons. They paid good money for the privilege to exploit New York renters, and now they see their agreements are all being violated. What kind of country is this when a honestly paid bribe is not honored?
17
As I see it, the entire real estate development industry has made the simple need for housing unaffordable in NYC. Condos going up everywhere crowding neighborhoods with developers looking for more more more. Few can ever buy, or find themselves underwater when they do as a handful of legacy owners control every inch of the city. Like flippers in other cities, and I'm sure we have our version here, "home" is not a place where people live, but a commodity for profit making. This is part of what has thrown our economic system out of balance... small businesses that have been in the city for decades have had to close, and low income workers which keep the city humming have a hard time finding any place to live. Bravo to Cuomo for squashing this trend to price most of the population out of any housing whatsoever.
8
The main problem with housing in New York is the public transit. The city has grown immensely, but the subway lines haven’t grown accordingly.
5
These new laws are great for current occupants of rent-stabilized units, but they’re pretty bad for everyone else, and also pretty bad for the city itself. Leave aside the fact that buildings will degrade in quality as landlords have no incentive to improve them (aside from basic stuff that threatens habitability). The law has also removed incentives to build new rental housing of any kind. Basically all new rental housing in the city for the last decade has been built under the 421(a) tax abatement program, which mandates rent stabilization for the length of the abatement (generally 35 years). Without the program, the economics of new development are strongly tilted toward condominium development.
Because developers will now assume that stabilized rents will rise slower than inflation and expenses will rise faster than inflation, building new rental housing under the new rent laws would create a declining annuity, e.g. the building’s net income will decline a little bit every year. These new and inferior economics would typically be reflected in the falling price of land – in order for someone to build new rental housing, the price of land will need to be lower because the profit will be lower. Unfortunately, the price of land won’t fall enough to justify new rental housing because increased market rate rents (which will result from this law) will lead to more condominium demand on the margin from folks who would have previously been market-rate renters.
11
@Paul Banks require a rental model to back up most condo projects (that aren’t on 57th Street) so this analysis likely incorrect
2
@PWC I am a former commercial appraiser so I can speak to this. You are correct that a rental fallback analysis helps size a construction loan (e.g. a construction loan might be smaller if the rental fallback isn't as high) but it doesn't change the underlying for-rent/for-sale analysis.
There are many alternative sources of debt and equity that can be and are used to fill out the capital stack in a condominium development (for example mezzanine lenders). In fact, I would expect many short-term lenders that previously lent on rent-stabilized buildings (often to fund tenant buyouts that would allow deregulation of units) to move their focus to condominium projects in search of a return.
3
What is the point of owning an apartment if the rent - expenses doesnt even conver mortgage?
13
This is what happens when there's an absence of competition for any commodity. Given the status quo, a better job needs to be done to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords. On the other side of the spectrum, I'm surprised that the Dem progressives did not make all apartments rent free. It would be consistent with free college, reparations, guaranteed incomes, etc.
12
@Mike. Well put. All the "social engineering" in kitchen only screws up the basics for everyone. And yes, even a five year old knows what is fair and unfair. Shame on Cumo.
3
I wonder how many of you can objectively evaluate the impact of these bills. The real problem in NYC is supply-demand. Rent control won't solve that problem. Don't believe me? Ask the folks in Stockholm Sweden: they have rent control-they also have a 20 year waiting period for rent controlled housing and a massive black market designed to circumvent the waiting period. We are also effectively asking landlords to pay all the costs of addressing this societal problem that affects us all. Maybe the consequences won't be as dire as the real estate industry suggests, but how good should we be feeling about bills that don't address the root cause of the high housing costs in NYC and disincentivise rental property ownership/investing? You get what you pay for folks...
15
Stockholm mostly, barely has a rental market. It’s almost exclusively homeowners in Stockholm. Renting your home in general is rare in Sweden, unless you’re a student or getting your first home.
3
@Leo
The supply problem for landlords is when the supply meets the needs. Ideally, they want the supply to be so low that very wealth people live in closet sized apartments and landlords do not have to provide any amenities to attract them.
The argument that rent controls disincline landlords to build more apartments is spin more than fact. Landlords do not stop renting when rent controls are applied, nor do they refuse to build new units when there are people eager to rent them, which in Manhattan and Brooklyn Heights there is no shortage of people wanting to do just that.
2
As a rent-regulated tenant in Brooklyn, this turn of events is a huge sigh of relief to me. I've lived in Clinton Hill for over 20 years and gentrification has rendered the neighborhood that I've put down roots in, a neighborhood I love intensely, stratospherically unaffordable. I've grown accustomed to making my own repairs, to ensure that my rent remains the same: I'm pretty sure that this development will not light a fire under my landlord, but I've made my peace with that.
In a related sidebar, my neighborhood (off the Fulton-Washington subway stop) is in the midst of a tremendous construction boom. However, the resulting apartments are in the 100s of thousands and beyond the reach of most long-time residents. I would love to see the implementation of an ownership plan for the existing apartments of longtime renters, or the introduction of reasonably (10s of thousands, not 100s of thousands) priced homes, even micro-homes, for people like myself. I want to remain where I am. I rode it out during the wild west days of open drug trade and prostitution and I find the prospect of being thrust out after my faith in the neighborhood an incredibly unfair return.
13
@Bella S. 10's of thousands? I needed to hire a licensed plumber to reinstall a water supply to an apartment. The bill was 1200. Good luck with that.
6
Housing is a commodity--supply meets demand where price is agree upon between buyer and seller. This will not increase housing stock, this will not allow for reinvestment into properties, this will not help make the average apartment more affordable.
There have been no studies--and, believe me, I've looked at these studies--that show rent control to be even close to what we call an efficient system. The government compelling your landlord to set some arbitrary price is not useful. I've both lived in and moved out of NYC and I survived. If you can't afford an apartment in NYC, trust me, the rest of the country--surprisingly, I know--has air, water, and land.
10
Who's complaining ?
Existing tenants were already being protected . Actually the 1% yearly increases did not even cover the increases in operating a multifamily building .
The real issue is rent increases when an apartment becomes vacant .
It is those increases that made it worthwhile to be a landlord in the long run , and made it possible to operate a building that barely covers itself .
In effect vacancy increases subsidized existing tenants .
Take that away and some serious across the board increase are coming soon . By law landlords need to make an adequate return on investment .
It may be true that some landlords used aggressive tactics to bully tenants . Those landlords should be dealt with. Perhaps there should be licensing to be a landlord in NYC .
It is not a reason though to upend a system that seems to have worked for many decades .
The real estate industry can be pushed around and squeezed . However there does not seem to be an adult in the room to ensure it is not squeezed to death .
I am not too hopeful in Nycha or benevolent people taking over responsibility . It never works .
10
The effort to help tenants is misguided. The best way to control rents is to increase supplies of units. Look at Tokyo where the rent has been stable with increased population. Do we really want some cheap housing in bad shape?
10
Of course they're shocked. This is the same cohort from which our current president learned his business practices. Real estate developers, especially in New York are used to writing their own rules.
Good on ya, Andy!
5
Landlords have enjoyed privilege far beyond, and for far longer than any other commercial enterprise. Ironically, for all the obvious reasons, there is more consumer protection in the auto industry than renting a place to live. One such example: landlords have the "unleveled-field" to themselves, there is no competing equivalent importer to worry their profit margins and tax benefits.
Perhaps its time to invite experienced foreign enterprises to build housing. I'm sure many would seize the opportunity.
4
How many years did we once read the Village Voice's roundup of "The Worst Landlords in New York"? Decades, I recall.
Maybe if the landlords would focus their collective skills a bit more inward onto the worst actors and actions within their group instead of spending so much time and money lobbying politicians, it might not have become so necessary for the pendulum to swing so far now towards renter protection.
13
I hope the US Supreme Court Justices are watching this—
And thinking about their disastrous "Citizens United", the worst Supreme Court decision in modern times—
And the analogous effects of big money in our political process.
3
@srwdm Luckily, they probably are watching this and wondering how these laws do not constitute a regulatory taking of private property for public use without compensation. I do not doubt such a lawsuit is being formulated this very minute.
11
I am curious about one thing. What happens in NYC when a landlord declares bankruptcy? If this change is going to cause the financial havoc the landlords claim, I would imagine that the number of such bankruptcies will rise, maybe even skyrocket. What will then be the result? When a building is sold, must the new owner keep it as apartments past the end of all current leases? Can they opt to go condo? Can they force tenants to enter into a co-op? I can only imagine that the market forces will see to it that there will be large changes in the rent and real estate market one way or another. Of course, if all else fails, and enough renters and voters are hurt, there's always a sort of public ownership of rental units.
4
@Bob It will be sold subject to occupancy. Under these absurd laws tenants have a *right* to a lease renewal so the new landlord will be in the same position as the old landlord. The property will continue to deteriorate. Tenants have all the benefits of ownership with none of the responsibilities Public ownership of rental units ehh? Look up NYCHA in these very pages.
10
In most cities around the United States, rent for apartment and house rentals are not controlled. This is because the supply exceeds the demand. Landlords there are looking for tenants and so they tend to keep their units is decent repair. In New York , demand exceeds supply except for luxury apartments. Without rent-controls, rents would reach the height of Mr. Everest, rather than Mt. Washington.
The only way to solve the housing problem here is for massive public-financing of middle-class and low income housing. Thanks to the status of politics in this country such a program will not happen for a long time.
11
I will start celebrating AFTER the laws have been passed and signed into law by Cuomo. Until then, nothing is certain. I know this is pessimistic, maybe even cynical, but this is New York, and handshake deals and public vows don't mean that it's done. The real estate machine is furiously at work chiseling away enough senators to stop these changes, and the statements by the senator from Long Island quoted in the article are ominous indicators of what's to come. I hope I will be proven wrong!
7
I have an interesting vantage point on this topic as a 20-year NYC resident: I'm a licensed real estate salesperson, recent property owner (condo in Cobble Hill), and aspiring full-time artist, i.e. credit history has much room for improvement.
Yes, NYC landlords have earned their reputation - it's more than a few spoiling the bunch. That said, a few commenters criticizing the legislative overhaul have made some salient points.
Raising the rent to market rates isn't solely and simply about greed. Commanding a high rent allows landlords to:
1) keep pace with & stay ahead of skyrocketing property tax increases, which eat away at ROI and profit;
2) usually ensure a better class of tenant. Harsh, yes. But generally true. Renters earning high incomes are usually older (late 20s), looking to settle down, and easily assemble their application files which are uncomplicated - no guarantors, no 1099s etc. If they disrespect the property, at least there's capital readily available to make repairs and improvements.
Make no mistake - real estate developers and landlords have reaped what they've sown. But there are many other factors for which to account with the lack of affordable NYC rental housing.
3
NYC is in a housing crisis and our city decides to do nothing about it, where is the public housing? How's the shelter situation going? Try take the E train at 4 am and you will see where all the homeless people are spending their nights.
But of course it's all too convenient to pit tenants against landlords, so much so that the city can be off the hook and nobody gains anything out of these petty fights. It will be harder to find apartments, it will be harder to operate a small rental business, and yes, more people on the streets.
9
The interesting thing about the Rent Control debate in California is that Rent Control came about around the same time as Proposition 13 that capped taxes on homes to 2% percent set at the time of purchase. Rent control similarly caps rents at a certain amount per year.
Prop 13 backers told renters to vote for it because their landlords taxes would go down and then their rents. This never happened.
We hear property owners always saying we should abolish Rent Control, but these same folks want to keep Prop 13 so that they can enjoy the benefits of low taxation while renters pay whatever a landlord wants. Typical of the rich these days. Socialism for them, brutal capitalism for their tenants.
8
@Mr.Klein
Annual Prop tax rate in cali is 1%. value on tax roll is increased annually by no more than 2%, until such time the prop sells, or the edifice is vastly remodeled (minor upgrades and repairs not included).
1
@Mr.Klein
Annual Prop tax rate in cali is 1%. value on tax roll is increased annually by no more than 2%, until such time the prop sells, or the edifice is vastly remodeled (minor upgrades and repairs not included).
Upon sale, property is reassessed at current fair market value, usually reflected by the selling price.
1
As an ex-NYer and prospective property investor, to me this signifies the end of free market capitalism in NY real estate. That combined with the kick on the backside to AMZN clearly shows that NYC is fast swirling into the drain of socialism and perhaps communism.
11
The comments from the landlords flunkies. LOL.
“Elections have consequences” — B. Obama
PS, next we need to go after NYC housing stock sold to investors that don’t occupy the apartments. I would slap an annual tax so high on these units that not even a Russian oligarch laundering a truck load of money could afford to own one.
11
Well, finally, a step toward sanity. The real estate industry was killing New York and destroying the city's culture with greed gone amuck. It's obscene what they've been allowed to get away with... of course, now they think they can demonize with demagogic claims of 'democratic socialism.' Well, two can play at that, you piglets of plutocracy.
12
Just remembering the other past articles from NYT on Trump the landlord makes you support this law.
5
The NYT reports: "If a tenant in a rent-stabilized unit earned over $200,000 a year in two consecutive years, the landlord could deregulate the unit. That will no longer be allowed."
Can someone tell me why this change is a good thing for low-income people? Shouldn't rent-stabilized apartments be means tested? As it stands, rent stabilized apartments are for the lucky or those able to pay under-the-table super high brokerage fees.
I have friends who make decent incomes and live in stabilized apartments, and I'm happy for them for winning the lottery, but as fair policy, NY rent regulation laws make little sense.
16
We could solve that perceived unfairness by regulating every unit in the city.
2
I wish the legislators could do something for the commercial laws, too. After 24 years of decent rent increases in NYC, my landlord just raised my next lease 92%... yes, that's not a typo... 92%. Now in the twilight years of our business (we are all older)---we have to move out.
This family owned building owners have systematically and outrageously raised the rent for those of us who have been there the longest.. 24, 28, 40 years... in the last few months.
They plan to turn it into a "luxury" office building! HA! Even their renovations are so on the cheap I don't know how anyone would consider this kind of rent increase without expecting something more. The hallways and bathrooms are disgusting and there are rat traps behind the garbage cans on each floor.
There should be a law against such greed.
12
According to Forbes:
Durst Family 2015 net worth $5.2 billion
Richard LeFrak & family net worth $6.4 billion
Rudin family net wroth $5.1 billion
Cry me a river, "Titans."
16
What if Russians had sent candidate Trump a letter from Russia with dirt on candidate Clinton? Would candidate Trump have to had turn it over to the FBI or could he have just gotten it published by U.S. media? Are we allowed to read the Moscow Times or watch RT? I suppose we can, but can we use any information we get from those sources to make financial or political decisions? What exactly is the claim that is being made now regarding the use by Americans of information gotten from non-Americans?
2
So typical of the Times: "Titans of Real Estate in 'Shock'...
The implication of this headline is that the NY legislature has given the real estate moguls their comeuppance.
But if you get deep into the article you find out that there are 25,000 landlords affected by these new regulation, undoubtedly a very large number of which are not Titan, but who are just making a modest or moderate living in owning and operating their building.
Perhaps, the Times will have a follow-up article about these non-Titans and the real harm that they will incur as to their livelihoods and ability to maintain their buildings. Fat chance.
9
Pendulums must swing in a capitalist/democratic system. The landlords had it their way seemingly forever.
7
You can find a 2 bedroom apartment ANYWHERE (upper east/west side, downtown, Williamsburg, whatever) all day for under 4,000. Where is this rental crisis? Come to the Bay and see a real crisis.
4
To afford 4K in rent one has to make 160k.
3
Here's hoping this will slow the flood of New Yorkers into (my/your) city's housing market.
4
I'm glad the loopholes were closed, and surprised that small thing led to such a stink.
Unfortunately this is a signal to both lobbyists and left-wing democrats to be more aggressive.
As with the departure of the Amazon HQ, the complaint on the left is that the other side didn't take their demands seriously.
Both sides want to conduct negotiations in private; they want to be the back-room deal-makers.
None of this deal-making is good for policy, social or economic.
Only when policy consequences are objectively and transparently laid out in the context of actual legislative text can rational policy-making begin.
About time somebody stood up to developers. Everywhere.
7
Don't tell me these owners are making no money. What nonsense.
I lived in a rent controlled apt. in LA for ten years. The owners of the building had owned it for several decades – 35 plus years. The building has 8 units. Beautiful location with a pacific view and I loved it. they were allowed 3% rent increases each year.
The owners paid about 35,000.00 for the building. In the ten years that I lived there, my rents paid for the purchase price almost 5 times over.
That is one unit out of the eight. This canard spread in these comments that landlords don't make money is just absolute hogwash, balderdash, and utter propaganda.
Just stop.
20
How about real estate taxes in NY get tied to sale prices.
2
People are tired of hearing talking points from industry groups asserting that what is good for the rich is good for everyone else. When was the last time that turned out to be true?
19
I'm positive that the "incentives to renovate", i.e. loopholes enabling landlords to raise rents with minimal renovations that were justly removed will somehow not affect the profit margins of those running these companies. The situation will just get worse for the tenants in these buildings.
"Real estate industry groups said the bills would do serious damage to housing in the city by reducing incentives for landlords to renovate existing apartments and to build affordable new ones."
This would imply...that existing apartments are in good shape and new affordable housing is available. HA! Surely they could come up with a stronger (although probably also false) argument.
6
I rent a market rate apartment in a large UES building that still has a significant number of rent-subsidized apartments. I'm concerned about what this will mean for me. I fear that my unregulated rent go up even more now, because my landlord will be trying to make up for an inability to raise rents and de-control other units in the building. I'm happy for my rent-stablized neighbors, but I get the feeling that no thought was given to those of us with no protection at all. They won't have to move now, but I might.
18
We can’t have this. The powerless can not be allowed to believe, even for a moment, that their government has the ability and the desire to hold the powerful to account for their wealth and privilege. Whats next? Accountability in Washington? The entire Trump Administration losing the ability to ignore and subvert the Constitution at will? Unthinkable. Or is it.
10
About time. Real estate families in NYC have been getting away with a lot of egregious conduct for decades. Questionable tax practices and selling properties to wealthy foreign families with questionable sources of the legitimacy of that income for example.
These families have been able to operate with relative impunity for decades. If this keeps up one day we may elect a President from one of these families that will continue to have no regard for the rule of law. Oh wait...
11
I am reading a Robert Heinlen science fiction classic at the moment and I would just remind everyone of some words from that novel that I think apply here: “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Something will give here - whether that is increased rents for those who have to pay market rates, neglected maintenance, decreased supply, or some or other undesirable effect, I don’t know. Pushing on a market like this in a arbitrary way will most certainly lead to some economically sub-optimal outcomes, for both renters and landlords.
12
The landlords remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail movie. The landlords, like the Black Knight, are always supposed to win!
1
To the extent NYC rental apartments have been profitable to "greedy" landlords ... is the same reason that, eg, Turkish or Argentinian sovereign debt is profitable to investors. It's risky! Now, those landlords know why their profits were so big. Andrew Cuomo. Juan Peron, Hugo Chavez, Recep Erdogan, et al -- in the name of "the people" will, in effect, confiscate your property. Can't say they weren't warned.
3
An exhaustive examination of landlord books would reveal whether their claims are real or Trumped up. If there are any decent landlords, they should want the system cleaned up so that indecent landlords do not run them out of business.
5
There has to be a middle ground here. Why should some people be able to rent apartments at below market value unless there is some kind of means testing? Certainly, landlords who let criminals into their buildings to terrorize tenants need a lot of jail time. And, I am sure that there are more than a few regulated tenants who own vacation properties out of NYC thanks, at least in part, to the rent money they did't have to pay. If low and moderate income housing is needed, isn't this something that government should provide or subsidize? And, landlords who routinely game the system (a la Trump with his family's captive boiler supply company) should be heavily penalized. However, there is no question that NYC rents have skyrocketed, making it almost impossible for anyone without at least a six figure income to afford.
8
Agree but why does a city HAVE to provide subsidized housing? Why not offer the housing as a perk for teachers, police, etc who are working here at a lesser rate.....
4
@Vicki
What is wrong with using money saved from otherwise exorbitant rent for another purpose? Sour grapes much?
If the landlords version of what will happen is true, then New York is about to become one giant green space because no one will build there.
There are also unicorns for sale.
6
@Mark Davis If you are pining for the fjiords, please look up images of the Bronx in the 1970s. Not quite green fields but how about a desert of burnt out rubble?
4
Probably only a matter of time before this is struck down by the SC on the basis of some 14th amendment claim or because it did too a job and is no longer needed rationale a la Shelby v. Holder, or whatever the reactionary majority on the SC comes up with
2
In an earlier article lobbyists "predicted that building owners would no longer have an incentive to invest in their rent-regulated units." How infuriating. Why does anyone need an incentive to make lives better. God forbid people in a position to ease burdens should simply do just that.
7
I’m not sure why everyone feels entitled to live in Manhattan. People who want a deal can go to the Hudson valley and commute.
10
It's about time! After 40 years in a rent stabilized apartment I witnessed and experienced first-hand what a huge, billionaire landlord was capable of doing with their in-house legal department. The law was consistently bent to favor the landlord for legitimate complaints as well as bogus actions against tenants. It had to get better and although I don't think things will change totally, this is a major step in the right direction for those of us who need an affordable place to live. You know, the other 99%!
12
Wow! This gives me hope for the SF Bay Area where there is a long term housing problem enforced by the very powerful real estate association.
8
Life is so tough for billionaire real-estate tycoons. I can't even imagine their pain right now. All we ca do is offer kind thoughts and prayers and perhaps a moment of silence.
23
Last time I was in a New York apartment it was a 4th floor walkup on the Lower East Side, two tiny bedrooms and a bath for $4200 a month. The toilet was a leaky 12-gallon flusher from the 40s or 50s; the tub and sink were even older. The bedroom floors were unfinished, splintery wood. The walls were crumbling. The kitchen was stained, peeling linoleum and warped fiberboard cabinets.
Nothing in this apartment had been maintained, absolutely nothing. The owners simply pocketed the money decade after decade.
And that is what passes for housing in Manhattan for non-billionaires.
I'm not optimistic that these laws will help anybody. But the status quo is so awful, I don't know how it could possibly be worse.
20
new real estate developer billboard: if you lived here, you'd be homeless now.
7
Rent control is the one issue that pretty much all economists across the political spectrum agree is a bad idea, yet the experts are being utterly disregarded by lawmakers. I get it, housing is a critical issue that provokes emotional responses, but rent control clearly isn't the answer and the community can't afford to have lawmakers shooting from the hip and unintentionally making things worse.
Survey of a broad panel of economists on rent control, for those interested.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent-control
9
@S
How many of those sages live in Manhattan or want to?
4
Let’s apply the Trump Litmus Test to this legislation.
If he’s against it, it must be a good thing.
11
Raise rents and then cheat people out of a living wage, cheat the old folks out of Social Security, reduce medicare and medicaid to a few dollars, blame everything on Obama, Let Senator McConnell obstruct everything and revolution will come. An entire generation can't afford the rents in NYC and believe that this abuse will never end. The article portrays greedy landlords buying the NY legislature until the rebellion finally came last year.
18
Does the greed of these people know no limits?
12
I guess Trump and Jared have put a target on the back of real estate developers as the worst humans on the entire planet. So at least they've done that for us as a society.
8
As someone who was forced out of her apartment by an unscrupulous landlord (rats, barking dogs, meth addict allowed next door, final straw---unfixed gas leak and harassment by landlord himself) I say congratulation to the tenants. We need the same laws in San Francisco.
17
@C lol, I can't help but laugh at this. I literally brought an action to address a nuisance complaint from tenants because another tenant brought in an *enormous* I am talking a St. Bernard dog that barked every minute of the hour. Judge told me I passed the 30 days to bring this action and tough noogies, the dog and the tenant stays! You can't make this stuff up!
5
Why oh why should LLs subsidize their tenants rent??? It doesn't make any sense unless the LLs get compensating benefits that I'm unaware of.
You can't take my property for a public purpose without compensation. Look it up.
6
I am not on the side of real estate owners but can someone explain to me how this will create more affordable housing in NYC?
All I can imagine is that the people who have apts that fall under these guidelines get to keep them, but imagine that conditions may deteriorate so to speak as landlords start to leave the city.
I see more middle class apartments becoming tenements so to speak.
Please explain how this will create any new good lower priced living spaces?
11
For starters, there’s no such thing as landlords leaving the most populated city in the United States. Let’s start there.
Secondly, aggressive and predatory tenant buyouts are the ONLY motivation these landlords have to renovate ANYTHING EVER, because they would then AND ONLY THEN renovate so excessively that the property could no longer be rent controlled. These buyouts destabilize families, businesses, AND neighboring schools who still rely on archaic headcounts to determine whether they will have sufficient funding.
Thirdly, if the market has a low and competitive floor, then that both reduces the height of the ceiling AND forces landlords to offer MORE for the dollar they’re demanding from potential tenants. There can be no more $4000 a month studio dumpster fires if there are now $1100 a month dumpster fires. And, though there should be NO dumpster fires, this neutralizes the ability of landlords to artificially inflate the value of them. They want to overcharge for it? It will sit and they will lose money on it.
These laws create a lower floor for competition. The *developers* don’t like that. But when has competition ever been bad for the consumer?
5
You really don’t know much about the 60s-80s do you? Landlords burned down their own buildings because the buildings were worth more as empty lots than as apartments. And then the lots sat empty for decades.
7
I'm thinking of the op-ed about insulin, "We either buy insulin or we die." The real estate industry is like big pharma. They will allow people to die as they scrutinize profits.
12
I've lived in a stabilized apartment in Brooklyn for 15 years, in a neighborhood that's now rapidly gentrifying. The city's rent protections are already incredibly strong -- you can renew your lease forever, will it to your children, and every dollar of rent increase upon vacancy is supposed to be justified with real improvements to the building and unit. And you can retroactively sue your landlord for a decrease if they're overcharging you. However, enforcement is slow and incredibly spotty. Will be interesting to see what actually happens as a result of these laws.
10
@Chris
The major-capital improvement "real improvements" until now are forever, just another way of raising your rent.
1
So as you’ve increased your wage, you still feel entitled to subsidized housing? Wow.
3
I helped manage apartments near Harvard square when i was in college the rent controlled units were a mess. Because the landlord bought the units and the previous landlord had not kept up with a timely maintenance plan and milked the units it became impossible to raise the rent because rent raises are capped and tied to some arbitrary maintenance metric which was established in 1950 and will not meet a modern standard.
Lots of the people in those units were in situations where they could pay market rates.
Like most well intended policy the unintended consequences can be worse .
The bargain is you get to live in a low cost subsistence apartment with bad fixtures cracking paint poor lighting peeling linoleum etc because that is what the law allows.
If as a land lord you want to invest in upgrades and your payout is negative ... should you take the responsibility and go bankrupt and ask your children to starve? Who other than Congress runs their business like that t?
9
@Andy
Anecdotal evidence is not admissible.
3
There have been three protected species in the NY housing market: the landlords, the occupants of "stabilized" apartments and the HUD recipients who live on taxpayers' expense.
The landlords have been put in their place. Why not re-examine the 'stabilized' crowd which often pays pennies on the dollar and treats the places as their own (handing them down to family and friends)? This is grossly unfair to everyone, especially those who pay full market rents.
24
The real estate lobby and the politicians that do its bidding are the reason for the lack of affordable housing, and not just in New York.
10
@kj
Almost every economist believes that rent regulations (i.e. market distortions) are the reason for the lack of affordable housing. It's really just Econ 101 pricing effects on supply and demand.
The argument you should be making is whether or not the benefit of rent regulation outweigh the problems caused by these shortages.
8
@JSD
And the lobby's bribes are not market distortions?
Econ 101...the same people who failed to predict the Great Recession.
The lobby seeks to limit the supply of housing ...that's Econ 101.
4
@kj
Supply and demand have been the basis of economic thought across the political spectrum since Adam Smith.
All it is saying is that if we reduce the price of a good (housing in this case) below the price the market is willing to pay, the supply of the good will decrease as the good gets swooped up by people willing to pay that price. It makes sense logically to say that people want artificially cheap apartments more than landlords will want to provide them. It's in fact the whole point of the regulatory scheme - to make housing available to people who would not or could not pay rent at market equilibrium prices.
That doesn't seem like it would controversial. What would be weird is if the City proposed rent regulation that would increase the supply of available units (i.e., regulations that would make people want to give up their apartments to make them available to others in the market).
2
I overheard a conversation of one of these titans. He was not happy; not so much because he owned a building but because he just sold one and the buyer still owes him a million dollars. I’m pretty sure their next meeting will be awkward.
3
Rent control is a classic, simple, example used in introductory economics courses. Literally the first half of the first semester. Limit prices on affordable housing and you will get less supply of affordable housing.
13
Yes, true, but those in the rent controlled apartments don’t care about economics.
7
Econ 101 teaches rent control based on areas with normal markets. NYC and the SF Bay/SV Areas are not normal. If only the rich live there, and auto mechanics and nurses are in Nebraska, better have your private jet on standby for when you or your car get sick. Eventually, the rich may miss coffee, shoe repair and healthcare, but don’t expect us to hurry back. Oh, as for childcare, just send your kids to us in Nebraska to care for; the economics will make more sense.
4
The housing crisis isn't just about a lack of supply, but also a lack of affordability. Theoretically, if you increase supply, you'll decrease prices, but that's not going to happen if the new housing stock is catering to the wealthy. The compromise here should be to loosen the restrictions if developers pledge to build more moderate income housing. Not everyone needs a pool on their rooftops. Most people just want a safe and decent place to live that's close to their jobs.
10
How will legislators make NYC Housings & Preservation (HPD) and NYCHA more accountable? Both agencies have outdated technology the database that tracks unoccupied units is outdated and contains inaccurate or incomplete information in regards to landlord, property manager. HPD can't tell you how they decide on their property managers, but if you really dig you can see many of them gave a donation to mayor.
4
Congratulations to apartment tenants in New York City and statewide. I do not live in New York but have friends who do. I realize that many factors contribute to a wide range of living expenses in various parts of the country. The reality though, of 'affordable' housing in New York City, is a concept that is a bit hard to accept in comparisons with much of the country. I have rented in several urban areas in the country over many years. It appears that finally the state government of New York has realized the many landlord/tenant inequities that have accumulated over time and taken action to right that wrong. Legislators and the governor appear to have the spine to finally act in the interests of average people, and perhaps risk loosing donations and political support from wealthy members of society. It seems these changes in law will give many people in New York City at least a chance at a decent living space that costs more within a reasonable percentage of their incomes. I applaud the state legislature of New York and the governor. I hope that other state legislatures can gain courage from this action to truly work more for just conditions for average people.
11
This:
"democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party is in full control of the state government"
Is a good a thing.
It's time we got a bit more equality in all things (housing included) in this country. Let's hope that this is a precursor to similar trends nationwide.
Developers, like Donlard Trump, have had it too easy for too long. Time to clean up the mess.
16
Perhaps if the real estate industry had built more apartments for moderate income earners, rather than building luxury apartments for the wealthy, people would be more willing to listen to their concerns. The industry's greed and short sighted strategy is partly to blame for the housing crisis and the lack of respect for the developers' bottom line.
19
@Jmart
Capitalism at its strongest, my friend.
1
To the extent that there is a shortage of affordable housing in NYC, the market will correct for that by either making more housing available until supply equals demand, or by requiring employers in NYC to pay employees more so that they can afford housing, or both. A non-market based solution is social engineering. It doles out favors to those that would otherwise not be able to afford to live in NYC at the expense of landlords, and with the result of less housing and lower quality housing. I understand the desire to make NYC more affordable, but I don't think rent control is the answer, or that it is fair. Anecdotally, I am aware of at least one person that lives in a rent subsidized apartment that is a hedge fund manager and owns a vacation home in the Hamptons. Is that fair?
9
@Bill
If the hedge fund manager makes more than $200,000 two years in a row you should turn her/him in to the DHCR who will cancel his lease. Or you're mistaken....
1
I have lived in my place here for 30 years . My landlord and his partner own about 20 buildings, so far they have painted the hall way once, but 'cleverly' used only one gallon of very watered down to paint the entire 5 story stairwell. It was a nice gesture, that was 20 years ago. They did replace 90% of the windows, after several panes fell into the street. The new ones are ill-fitting and a very cheap substitute which don't function. They did do some work on the sprinkler system & they re-painted the fire scape, replacing one stair which had broken off. The roof has leaked for twenty years, it will not repair itself.. Over these 30 years the rent was never "cheap" I suppose have paid them, the equivalent of well over 1/2 million dollars by now, none of that money gets put back in the building.
BTW The building is for sale. It is priced outrageously high, so no worries that I will be getting new landlords. Funny thing is , I don't ever want to move this is my 'home'.
13
I agree with many of the commenters that this kind of rent control is in total defiance of economic logic and could potentially do more harm than good. But that doesn’t mean that something can’t be done. In city after city across America, much of the housing stock is largely unoccupied, with luxury multimillion dollar condos acting not as residences but effectively as investment accounts for storing cash. Our cities are being destroyed by this and our middle (and in the case of New York the merely “affluent” as well) are being gutted by this. Cities like New York now have housing prices driven by future price appreciation and not justified by rent income. In other words, a textbook economic bubble. In my opinion a key policy goal for any super expensive city like New York needs to be to keep housing prices stable. The best way to accomplish this is to restrict ownership to actual residents that spend more than half of the year in the city.
A policy like that would transform our major cities. Cities are for living and the days of celebrities and hedge fund titans trading condos back and forth like pieces of fine art need to come to an end.
13
I see some commenters complaining that this only helps a tiny minority of renters. I think these commenters are mistaking rent *stabilization* for rent *control*. The latter involves a freeze on the rent for an apartment, and is indeed rare; the former is an apartment where the rent rates increase each year, but only by an amount set by the city, rather than the "market," and as stated in the article accounts for about 40% of rental stock. Technically the minority of renters, but hardly insignificant.
9
"This room costs 2,000 dollars a month
you can believe it man it's true
somewhere a landlord's laughing till he wets his pants"
--"Dirty Blvd." by Lou Reed, 1989
Sorry, New York City landlords. Your reputation is largely mud, and it's been that way for decades as Lou Reed made clear 30 years ago. Show tenants that you aren't motivated by unfathomable greed, and maybe one day the non-wealthy majority will let "market fundamentalism" reign in the housing industry. Until then, never.
14
Deterioration of buildings? Ha! That's what happened after 1972 when the Real Estate won the elimination of the rent protection laws. It got so bad, by 1974 a republican legislature and a republican governor reinstated the laws and expanded them. That was the Emergency Tenant protection Act which will expire when the vacancy rate hits 5%.
In 1972 building owners showed themselves to be grossly irresponsible. These laws are a response to their overarching greed. You reap what you sow, baby.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
15
Well, hey now, who says there isn't any good news anymore!
9
It has long been pointed out that these are the conditions that breed Bolshevism, and yet our oligarchs are surprised. La-dee-da.
7
To the real estate salesman: well la de dah.
7
when Canadian commenters say government should control rents and build more subsidized housing that government should pay for, unless they're referring to the Canadian government sending us money, I don't see why they are lecturing
2
@Bob
Bob, your neighbours can have good ideas.
Why wouldn't you be willing to investigate them?
3
A price is always determined by supply and demand. These laws will discourage construction of new supply and then force a low price. Bad for both tenants and landlords. A lose-lose situation. The only winner will be owners of condos, townhouses and homes because their values will continue to rise due to lower new construction of apartments.
4
And the incentive to build affordable housing in the absence of rent regulations was that the landlord, who was supposed to be abiding by the agreement he'd signed, had many ways to wiggle free of that obligation. It worked oh so well...
4
The problem is that the newest supply has been dominated by the luxury market, which further drives up prices. Get the industry to come to the table on affordable housing (not projects), and maybe some real progress can be made.
6
@Umbabumba it is impossible to build affordable housing in NYC even with zero land costs. It is impossible to build market supply fast enough to depress rents for all units even if they were deregulated.
2
So, it appears as if the Trumpian Real Estate Developer (TRED) class has finally met its match, in that the absolute need for working Americans to supercede the Repugnant tyranny of excessive control of money and wealth has surrendered its private sector dominance to a whimper "... of shock...".
6
As aptly demonstrated from our commercial real-estate trained “president,” there’s nothing but greed driving these speculative money machines. Gouge your corporate buyers for a change.
5
Democrats seem to constantly champion the entitlement of those who’s main aim in life is a free ride. They also seem to take a perverse pleasure in paying for their generosity with money taken from others who have worked hard all their lives to make their own way.
6
," he said in a country with free health care.
8
I think you’re misunderstanding how the process works in NYC. There is Rent *Control which is very rare these days when Apts can be handed down to family members. Then there is Rent *Stabilization in which tenants pay increasing rents which have been skyrocketing from they lobbying of the Builders and Landlords. This time the tenants won for only the second time in 80 years.
9
Sounds like you’re describing Trump!
Playing the world's tiniest violin right now for these poor real estate moguls not being able to maximize profits on people's homes.
12
paying no more than 1/3 of income for housing is just a made-up number
5
“We thought the governor would help moderate some of the more ridiculous proposals.”
Examples of these “ridiculous” proposals, please?
I know the real estate lobby has (or had) massive influence in Albany and City Hall. Perhaps that influence has made them arrogant and out of touch and clueless as to what is “ridiculous” to the average voter.
7
if you cheat on your taxes, then you will get a break from rent increases.
2
NY's current rent control program began in 1943. It is the longest-running in the United States. As of 2017, 57% of NYC apartments were rent controlled or stabilized (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York). These apartments generally are never available to the public. Their occupants never leave them and in many cases they get handed down to family members, keeping them "off the market" for generations.
Why are unregulated rents are so high in nyc? Because 57% of the apartments are not available to the public. Think supply vs demand. Supply low, demand high. Demand high, price high.
Why are conditions in regulated apartments not up to standards? Because regulated rents are so low owners cannot afford to fix all the maintenance issues, doing so would put them in a loss situation.
Want to lower overpriced nyc rents and improve conditions at the same time? Eliminate this antiquated/obsolete concept of rent regulation. That will put the 57% of the total nyc apartments unavailable to the public back on the market. More supply, demand decreases. Less demand, lower cost. Yes, rent regulated apts will increase, but non-regulated apts will decrease and a lower overall "fair market" rent will prevail.
Granted, there needs to be a phase in and some rules. Retired on fixed low income? You can keep it until your death but no handing down. Income over a certain amount? You're out. Own a 2nd home? Out. Other rules necessary but the system needs to go.
13
@bored critic
The fair-market Manhattan will be inhabited by hedge-fund managers, dot-com moguls, lawyers and neurosurgeons for the foreseeable future.
3
You seem to forget that people live in those apartments. So where dies the extra supply come from?
3
Welcome to San Francisco NYC! We have had these laws in place since the 1970’s, and I have more than once considered moving to NY for its low rents.
1
Real Estate Development is what made DT what he is today - a criminal. Some off his biggest financial supporters are in the NYC real estate development business. Come on guys - you sided with the enemy of the people - now you're their enemy as well. Tarred with the same brush. Doesn't matter if some of your concerns are valid. Suggest you go into another business.
6
Landlords: “After all the millions I’ve contributed to your campaign, you do this to us Mr. Cuomo? My net worth will go down a few million!”
4
Get money out of politics. We need politicians that can’t be bought.
4
my god how are the poor landlords going to survive?!?!
my heart just feels their pain...
so unfair
one of them may not be able to afford the hamptons house this summer
6
@Tony, they're going to survive by going somewhere else to invest in real estate. They'll survive, but there'll be a lot less new housing supply. Because landlords will be able to make more money elsewhere, there'll be lots of nice new housing in other places.
4
@Marty the owners of older rent stabilized buildings (as opposed to new ones participating in abatement programs) are typically not developers —Lefrak is an exception
1
I almost fell out of my chair when I learned that our state government was finally going to overturn vacancy decontrol, the #1 cause of the loss of affordable apartments in NYC.
Real Estate developer interments are the cause of, not the solution to NYC’s housing woes. Their continued claim that ultra-luxury towers that block out the sun are a market based solution to the housing crisis is laughable and utterly craven.
9
Eh. After a while, I kinda just don't trust private businesses. It's not like they behave well when deregulated or left to self-regulate. Look at banks and the mortgage mess. Airlines and 737 max. Cable/telecom and their legendary bad service. Facebook and fake news. Pharmas and drug high prices and their complicity in the opioid crisis.
Let's not forget the current president and his son-in-law hail from the real estate industry and they're hardly a beacon of ethics and morality.
9
I am a small-time landlord in Cleveland, Ohio and living in one of the most affordable housing markets in the country, it boggles my mind to see what people are willing and able to pay for housing on the coasts. I empathize with the plights of tenants in places where the ratio of median home price or median rent to median income is so far out of bounds. However, I hope that lawmakers are prepared to handle the additional burdens that this places on cities. For example, this reduces the incentive to increase supply within the jurisdiction of the rent control, and greatly increases the incentive to build just outside of the jurisdiction. This will increase demands on transportation systems and spike rental demand just outside of the rent control districts. Maybe the pros outweigh the cons, but I hope there is a plan to deal with all of the consequences.
Or maybe you can all just move to Cleveland and telework, invest the money you save on rent/mortgages, and retire 20 years earlier.
12
Landlords can boo hoo all they want. Rent control did not just happen and buildings change ownership, meaning- buildings are taken over knowing there are rent stabilized apartments. It's happened time and again that they go in with the INTENT to drive those tenants out. And the increased ease of destabilizing of apartments that have vacated has only increased that harassment. The experiences of harassment are enough to make you sick.
We live in a rent stabilized apartment and if not for it being stabilized, we'd be homeless. Period. We do not pay 'nothing'. We work. Not that needing assistance when appropriate is wrong. Not at all.
Life in this society is supposed to be about something more than the constant torment and worry of surviving , of having, at the very least, decent shelter and enough to eat.
15
landlords can't charge more than people can afford to pay. they lose money on vacant apartments.
1
if you think it's so profitable to be a landlord, buy a rental property.
8
I like this move for the regulated apartments, but what about rent protections for the rest of us?
ALL leases should have their increases regulated. Be they luxury, middle or whatnot. In the non-regulated units, each year's increase should be subject to the same rules as the regulated units. Currently, landlords jack up the rent year to year until the tenant can't bear it. For too many people, this happens after the first year. Stabilize these leases as well, I say. Upon vacancy, the rent could be moved to a market rent (again, to re-emphasize, I am referring to the non-regulated units).
7
@Pete Great idea! The current system of some regulated, some not apartments gives benefits to long-time NYC residents at a cost to the rest of us. It's especially harmful to younger New Yorkers. Controlling annual increases in all apartments would give everyone a chance to find a home, and a neighborhood, and stay.
2
I understand that real estate investment and rental regulation are complicated subjects, but can anyone explain Douglas Durst's shoes?
2
@Dan Coleman: They make him feel young and alive.
@Dan Coleman
Ask him about Masaltos.
1
“Real estate industry groups said the bills would do serious damage to housing in the city by reducing incentives for landlords to renovate existing apartments and to build affordable new ones.” What the lesson that industry doesn’t seem to learn is that if you don’t actually do these things, then you’ve proven the market won’t make that happen. So don’t whine when you’re regulated because you’ve failed to police yourselves.
9
we are in the midst of an information revolution. yet, centers of economic activity are increasingly centered around a few hubs with very high real estate pricing.
what we need is economic development in areas that would have people move out from overpriced areas, say to Ohio or new Hampshire or Michigan. rent control in the end will only delay the inevitable, that people can't afford to live where they work.
I have programmers in India, analysts in Japan, and clients in Europe, all from Boston.
1
Rent controlled apartments benefit the few at the expense of the many. Market rates are higher because landlords charge more to offset the artificially low prices of rent controlled units.
You can see this every time a luxury building goes up -- a few units are dedicated to low-income housing to get a tax break -- and the other units are more expensive to make up for it. So unless you're really rich, or really poor, you are worse off.
With rent control, it's the same principle but without even the fairness of the extra value going to low-income people. I know plenty of relatively high-income people in rent-controlled units. They should not be benefiting at the expense of the rest of us. But they will never leave those units (unless they get to a point of being truly rich), as they watch the rest of us pay more and more each year.
I'm glad to hear that some abusive practices will be curbed--an elderly person should not be hounded out of their home of decades OF COURSE--but this law simply isn't a solution to New York's housing crisis. It's a band-aid that helps a random minority of people, not those in the most need, and certainly not a systemic solution for everyone struggling out here.
How bout outlawing airbnb? That would help the rest of us much more.
9
@ae
But for rent regulation Manhattan would be inhabited by hedge-fund managers, dot-com moguls, neurosurgeons and lawyers. Neither of us wants that.
3
As one who lives in San Francisco, where we have similarly misguided laws, I send my condolences. After decades of these “reforms”, rents are even higher here than in NYC. And they are here to stay. (Dianne Feinstein proposed ours in 1979....as a temporary measure).
I hope that you don’t have kids, because they will be living with you forever or moving to Utah, and will never be able to afford a place of their own.
3
No one is crying boo hoo for developers. They make plenty.
4
A lot about how upset the developers are, but very little about why. What's the matter, you actually have to FIX something?
9
"Landlords unwilling to invest in new or affordable housing in the future" - yeah, right. First off it's bank or Russian money being invested, not your own, and landlords are simply skimming everything off the top that they can. *Maybe* what's left will be used to maintain the property (usually not. It's left to the tenants.) Second, I've seen those run down clap traps in NYC which fill NYC. Who are you kidding, anyway? Maybe these landlords should have fixed things up when the fixing was good and the living for them was easy...
6
I guess that the millions that developers spent on lobbying was money not well spent.
8
It's tragi-comic that legislators actually passing laws that help their constituents, as opposed to the special interests, is front page news. What a commentary on how far "we've" moved towards an oligarchy, but yet how refreshing this action is. Let's hope it's the first of many, in New York, and around the nation. The little people, and their representatives, seem to finally be pushing back towards a more level playing field, in our country with the greatest rich-poor divide in our history.
13
Well said and true!
i would expect lots of abandoned apartment buildings in the near future in NY due to small owner bankruptcy. Then rent is free. California is likely not far behind.
5
@sh: You could always move to Texas. Just prepare yourself for your property tax bill. Also note that building contractors are not regulated by the state. Lay-zay fair capitalism! Yee haw!
1
This is really incredible! The almighty real estate "industry" is finally checked from the excesses that made New York City uninhabitable to average and lower income people. One can only wish that this is the beginning of a trend that extends beyond New York.
10
The industry asserts without any regulation demand would drive construction and there would be a building boom, driving down market rents. Then after, say, 25 years, people other than hedge-fund managers, lawyers, dot-com management and neurosurgeons would be able to return to rent in Manhattan, which is unique, and the market would be stabilized. They need to show me anywhere else this has happened. The lack of regulation of commercial real estate in New York has resulted in huge swings in values and an unconscionably high vacancy rate, not what I would call stability.
6
I somehow think these wealthy developers will be just fine.
13
@EDC, they'll be fine. They'll go somewhere else. And there will be less real estate development, and fewer jobs in New York. That will lead to fewer tax revenues, smaller government budgets, fewer government social programs, and just a broad, general decline in the quality of life for people in New York.
These developers are building your housing supply and employing people. But some people in New York don't seem to want them to make money doing that. So the people of New York have shot themselves in the foot because they don't like people making money in real estate.
3
Housing, like health care and food security, are social goods because everyone must have them. Because of this, we as a country must regulate prices so that they are not exorbitant but yet high enough so that landlord's can make a reasonable profit. (What is a reasonable profit is a contentious issue.) However, in exchange for controlling prices we also need to ensure that people that cannot afford even the regulated prices are subsidized so that below a certain threshold ($70,000 AGI in NYC?) they pay no more than 1/3rd of their income, similar to certain Section 8 programs. But that means spending tax dollars - and probably increasing taxes - to bridge the gap between the regulated rent and what is affordable.
While the above may be a fair and just resolution, it is a clear political problem in that you tell the landlords that they have to take less and the citizens/ taxpayers have to pay more for something that probably will not directly benefit the individual taxpayer.
5
@Schneiderman Completely disagree. Food and housing work well as markets when there is no government interference. Food as a share of pocket has decreased in share massively over the past 100 years due to innovations in storage, production, and logistics. The best mechanism for driving down prices throughout history is to allow people to compete on price and to innovate. Healthcare is a complete different animal. It does not function properly as a market. Consumers cannot easily price what their life or health is worth to them. It’s impossible to compare alternatives because consumers are uninformed principles who have services provided by informed agents (doctors). Patients just have to trust that they are getting what they are needing, that that extra test that will cost $x more is actually necessary, and so on and so forth. In short, don’t bucket food and housing with healthcare. There is no parallel whatsoever.
5
Concerning the relationship between property taxes and land use, Single-Family homes are by far the worst problem for creating affordable housing in the 5 boroughs. Historic preservation schemes to curb development coupled with the lowest taxes for their properties. This also has a ripple effect on commercial businesses and any use that requires manufacturing zoning. Where are new developments usually built? Rail yards, M-zones,...etc., etc
@Schneiderman
Lenin will be so proud of you. Remember the scene in movie Dr Zhivago when after the revolution, the good doctor comes back to his apartment fairly and equitably shared with strangers. That’s the next step for US is the likes of Democrat socialists take over.
3
“It seems to be that the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party is in full control of the state government,” Mr. Martin added.
Hooray!
About time.
Don't worry Mr. martin- you are still rich.
9
Capital to NYC and New York State - "Bye Bye".
Much easier to do business elsewhere.
Here we come Sunshine State!
7
"Next to bombing, rent control seems in many cases to be the most efficient technique so far known for destroying cities."
--The Political Economy of the New Left : An Outsider's View (1971), p. 39 Carl Assar Eugén Lindbeck (born 26 January 1930) is a Swedish economics professor and artist.
11
1971? A lot has changed, particularly ways of concentrating wealth at the top.
1
A Swedish economist once famously said, Rent control is the second most efficient way of destroying housing.
His interlocutor replied, Well, then, what's the first?
The atomic bomb, the economist reportedly replied.
8
The bills will transfer wealth from the deserving to the undeserving. When the left argues that the Bernie/AOC brand of Socialism will not lead to a Venezuela, this tyrannical taking by the New York Dems is evidence they are wrong. The instincts of Chavez and Madurai that destroyed Venezuela are exactly the same as the NY Dems.
8
@ehillesum. Btw, the undeserving I refer to are deserving of many good things but are simply undeserving of the money of those who own the real estate and are deserving of the financial benefit of owning it.
The article spent a lot of time and provided information on political contributions: but did not spell out what this bill changes and why it is considered to be a product of the socialist sect of the legislature. All I know from this is that something changed radically, and Coumo is afraid of the socialist members of the party.
5
This new rent law will witness the slow but inexorable decline of housing in NYC. The solution is to build more not regulate what is there. I hope you progressives enjoy it.
11
These Democrats are arrogant. What makes them think they understand what is going on in every apartment building in New York City? These laws are just going to lead to a lot more problems for everyone and probably some lawsuits.
6
Are you guys serious?
6 people I know already lost their construction jobs in anticipation of the new laws!
Plumbers! Electricians! Construction workers! Will all be losing their jobs!
This isn’t about the wealthy! This law destroys the middle income families! The families this law is trying to “protect”.
12
I wonder how many of those workers can afford to live in the buildings they make.?
6
Make that young brunette the front person for the movement.
1
Some of these rent changes will benefit people earning $200,000+ and many of the changes will benefit folks from the Upper West Side and at the expense of people in poor neighborhoods.
The NY Times presents this as if it's an unadulterated for the poor and it's almost comical how they try to make it seem like big real estate is quaking in their boots.
This article strikes me as class warfare with the Upper West Siders feeling all self-satisfied. It's not a balanced piece of journalism looking at the possible downside to the poor.
The new bill that passed is probably good news, but passing it off as the best things since sliced bred sounds more like boosterism than critical reporting.
4
The overriding theme of the GOP/Republican Party is to deprive every single average taxpaying American citizen from any and all representation in the halls of every single state legislature.
Controlling access to political power and influence has been their winning strategy for many years and has kept them in total control of every avenue available to them to build upon their wealth.
As long as the GOP controls access to power, they are going to co exist with average Americans, however, when they lose that power, they manifest their killer instincts similar to Ray Martin's vicious, malicious, comment, to wit: “It seems to be that the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party is in full control of the state government.”
In other words, we Americans are not one of "them" worthy of any representation in Congress or the state houses and if we dare to ask to share the power we are labeled "socialists."
Only "they" deserve representation and any consideration of their requirements to remain in control of the nation's wealth. Sharing the wealth is not permitted. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever.
10
Wow, you just hit the nail on the head!
Yes, they've done such a splendid job providing affordable housing, haven't they. "Hey, I got yer affordable housing unit right here, pal. Hold this for me, will ya."
10
There's no more high-income deregulation so I can now make $500K a year and live in a rent regulated apartment. And you can never get rid of me. Seems kind of ridiculous.
16
...and to take it a step further, now that I have my 2 bed rent regulated apartment on Central Park West for $1,300 a month, I have no problem paying for my kids' private school and can now get my house in the Hamptons! Who cares if the landlord doesn't renovate the apartment, I will pay for it myself. What a deal!
6
What city has the most onerous rent regulations and rent stabilization laws?
What city has the largest affordable rent problem?
See the relationship?
The proposed solution is the cause!!!!
9
Landlords are typical greedy business men want nothing other than to pass of the cost of everything to everyone else (tenant, tax deduction, etc..) and to walk away with all the profit. Their model is: Do nothing, take everything. I don't care what your "risk" is because if the risk was really that bad no one would be in this game like they are today.
5
Thank you Gov. Cuomo for not letting the developers bribe you. Thank you for standing up for the working and middle-class people of NY!
4
Aw, poor ultra-rich real estate developers.
NYC is not just for the ultra-rich hedge fund investors and the foreign oligarchs.
To turn the awful "Queen of Mean" Leona Helmsley's quote on its head, NYC is also for "the little people."
7
I just hope it hurts trump and his real estate holdings in New York.
2
The industry is suffering due to Mr. Trump’s refusal to pay his taxes. These barons want it all, and they want it for free.
4
The housing shortage is a real problem in the city and just got worse. The problem is that too many people want to live here. What is "demand" after-all? It is simply two or more renters competing for the same apartment. Nothing nefarious nor evil, just people competing for a place to live. Whoever has the means to outbid the other usually wins. It has nothing to do with who actually owns the building. Blame your fellow renters for increased rents!!!!
The solution is really obvious to me anyway. Just build more apartments and the rest will take care of itself.
9
de Blasio, who claims he's a Friend Of The Working Man, did not want to pay union wages when having so-called affordable housing built.
If he had to pay more, he whined that he couldn't build as many units.
Landlord bashing is another example of his pandering.
4
There is a glaring hole in this story: Not one word about the current context - not just in New York City or New York State, but the entire country: Affordable housing is in shockingly short supply. We have record numbers of people who are homeless and more than half of New Yorkers pay more than half their income in rent. Absent this context, one plausibly starts to wonder why landlords are being singled out. But this has been brewing for YEARS, NY Times. As affordable housing has disappeared, people have turned to government for solutions. What was 10 years ago a relatively small chorus calling for greater rent protections had by Bloomberg's time as mayor become a roar (that's when the homeless numbers really took off). The changes in the laws are actually fall far short of what advocates were seeking. They know how dire the situation is for millions of people working 80 hours a week just to make rent. As for landlords' claims that they won't invest, why isn't this pointed out to be the extortion that it is? The Rent Guidelines Board's analyses annually show that landlords are making decent profits. How many buildings in the last 30 years have gone into foreclosure? An infinitesimal number. If it were so unprofitable or if they were barely getting by, certainly many would have gone belly up. But one trend over that time that bears noting is the arrival of private equity - and the mad lust to squeeze another dollar out of a renter's wallet. Wake up people.
6
I just don't care about the democratic socalists so much, they aren't the answer to many things, however, this outcome was the proper outcome, and should have happened no matter who was in power.
Of course, we know that's not necessarily how it works. But yes, technicaly, if you are making contributions to a political party, it should not automatically mean you are purchasing your politicians to do what you want. It should mean you support their agenda regardless, or keep your money to yourself. And this time around, we have exactly that. These real estate developers have been bribing Republican legistlators for a long time now, and Cuomo, rightly, threw cold water in their face.
Renters are voters and yes, renters need to be protected by laws.
4
Good news for the rest of us working class. Billionaires are no longer in vogue and cannot buy AOC.
Hoping the rest of the country follows
4
Please ask AOC how she plans to increase the supply of housing to meet the ever increasing demand in a climate of eroding financial incentives for builders. Don't be surprised if she doesn't answer. She's probably busy finding jobs for people in Long Island City, the good folks she saved from big, bad Amazon.
6
@Thadeus
Instead of checking with AOC, I offer this from today's Washington Post, with the headline of "Amazon’s HQ2 is already making Arlington’s housing prices skyrocket"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/13/amazons-hq-is-already-making-arlingtons-housing-prices-skyrocket/?utm_term=.71f8f520d827
AOC wasn't wrong on this one.
4
You mean the billionaires, well they can all move to China and build their, this is where these crooks made their money. What we ought to do is tax them to build what we need.
@Thadeus
1
To all the people that think this “only helps those in rent regulated apartments but does nothing for those in market rate apartments” you are completely wrong.
It does away with the crazy 20% increase for vacancies, so if you decide to leave your market rate apartment to live in a rent stabilized apartment (of which there are many) you will be renting for substantially less.
Rent stabilized apartments cannot be deregulated anymore because of high income tenants or reaching the de-stabilization threshold. This means there will be more total stabilized apartments available to you, the market rate tenant to move into.
MCI increase, while unfortunately not completely dropped, will at least be much more limited.
This will help lower rents for market rate apartments in certain areas too because there will be more lower priced stabilized apartments available should you so desire one.
Thanks for listening.
4
Mr. Durst sits in a $500.00 chair, in front of a multi-million dollar view, in a multi-million dollar office, wearing a $3000.00 suit and probably a $600.00 tie while complaining about rules that might make renting in NYS just a little more affordable for some people, and he completely fails to see the disconnect. Then Jay Martin calls them "ridiculous proposals" while speaking for a landlord lobbying group with the deliberately misleading name "Community Housing Improvement Group", and he and his cohorts are shocked, SHOCKED, that the people of NYS and their legislators are tired of the real estate lobby's games. My grandfather used to say, if you plant tomato seeds, you grow tomatoes.
8
It shows how tone deaf he is that he allowed that picture to be taken. Million dollar views, literally far above the hoi polloi. Nope, not feelin it for you.
"Real estate industry groups said the bills would do serious damage to housing in the city by reducing incentives for landlords to renovate existing apartments and to build affordable new ones."
Who puffs this smoke? That this Is what motivates landlords?--care about their tenant/serfs. They'd rather launder drug, extortion and corruption money.
5
To all the people that think this “only helps those in rent regulated apartments but does nothing for those in market rate apartments” you are completely wrong.
It does away with the crazy 20% increase for vacancies, so if you decide to leave your market rate apartment to live in a rent stabilized apartment (of which there are many) you will be renting for substantially less.
Rent stabilized apartments cannot be deregulated anymore because of high income tenants or reaching the de-stabilization threshold. This means there will be more total stabilized apartments available to you, the market rate tenant to move into.
MCI increase, while unfortunately not completely dropped, will at least be much more limited.
This will help lower rents for market rate apartments in certain areas too because there will be more lower priced stabilized apartments available should you so desire one.
Thanks for listening.
The arrogance of the landlords is absolutely stunning. Not just their sense of entitlement when it comes to unlimited power and profit, but their belief that the most cynical, specious arguments will convince us all that they represent the common good.
I actually hope the new laws make them suffer. It will be a good lesson in humility.
6
Next step: stop building these vertical pick-up-stick skinny monster apartment towers. I keep having nightmares that possible shoddy construction in the foundation of one of them will someday cause one to topple over sideways. The rest of the nightmare is not a pretty picture.
Wow. They sound pretty worried. Good. I've lived in NY, I've lived in Florida. I've also lived in Missouri and Kansas. (I now live in Mexico).
It didn't matter where I lived, if I was renting, tenants never, ever had any rights. If renters wanted a roof over their heads, they had to bow and scrape to their landLORDS (even the term "landlord" is wrought with inequality...)
So good for New York pushing back. And boo hoo real estate overlords. Cry me a river.
6
It is very simple. Landlords only invest in (building/improving) housing if they can get a better return (i.e. higher rents) doing so.
Cap the returns = cap the investment.
You want cheap rents in NYC? Get ready for cheap (i.e. poor) housing.
7
Once upon a time in America, we had a notion of providing service to our community in exchange for earning (yes, earning, not extracting) a good living. We talked about what we contributed, not about ROI.
If your world view has shifted to viewing the provision of housing for other people as a strip-mining proposition, where you’ll only provide good living conditions in exchange for rents most cannot pay, then prepare to be despised and regulated. This, too, is a natural byproduct of your approach.
If you read this and think “I’m not wealthy,” here’s the benchmark: do you fear homelessness if your refrigerator stops working? (‘If I ask for a repair, will my rent become impossible, or will my landlord seek to get rid if me? Maybe I can fix it myself? Maybe an ice chest?’) If not, in NYC, you’re wealthy.
4
There is one absolutely unassailable truth that people need to keep in mind: price controls lead to shortages. You can look all over the world where price controls were instituted and see the truth of it.
It takes a while, but in a decade, or even sooner, the people in New York will bemoan the lack of quality housing stock, because developers and investors will not want to invest where they are constrained from making money.
And New York will go into decline as a result.
5
Congratulations!
Property owners will complain about the hit to their profits but...if people cannot afford rents in your city, they won't live there. Who will make your coffee, drive your cars, teach your kids, and work in all the other ordinary city services that don't pay enough to deal with speculation-distorted property market prices in an international city. That's a real problem and so far, powerful rental controls that protect those people are the best answer.
As other commenters have written, the hatred many New Yorkers feel toward landlords came from somewhere...like maybe years of inadequate upkeep. When hardworking citizens like teachers and bus drivers (not crack dealers) are complaining about their landlords, there is something wrong with the landlords' behaviour. Plainly.
5
@EE do you own property in New York City? what do you know about teachers ability to pay?.
We are capable of making our own coffee.
2
These laws are going to lead to unintended consequences. Under the new rules, a landlord of a rent-regulated apartment can only increase rent a maximum of 2% for building improvements that “directly or indirectly” benefited all tenants. If you have a rent-regulated apartment in New York City, you will get a 2% rent increase every single year, forever. You can count on it.
1
@Mark
Compared to the present annual rate of rent increases, 2% seems like a bargain.
1
@Mark
2%! I want in! I'd be happy to take up anyone's rent payment if they pay me the equivalent of their current rent in an inflation indexed Treasury.
1
@Gavriel
That seems like a bargain in the current economy. But, when there’s a recession, the rent is going to go up. At 2% compounded, a $2500 apartment will rent for more than $3700 in 20 years. But, the quality of the apartment will go down over that time period too.
2
From the New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/magazine/the-perverse-effects-of-rent-regulation.html
"The problem, though, is that these programs actually make the city much less affordable for those unlucky enough not to live in a rent-regulated apartment, Mayer says. The absurdity of New York City’s housing market has become a standard part of many Econ 101 courses, because it is such a clear example of public policy that achieves the near opposite of its goals.
There are, effectively, two rental markets in Manhattan. Roughly half the apartments are under rent regulation, public housing or some other government program. That leaves everyone else to compete for the half with rents determined by the market. Mayer points out that most housing programs tie government support to an apartment unit, not a person. “That is completely nuts,” he says. It creates enormous incentive for people to stay in apartments that no longer fit their needs, because they have had kids or their kids have left or their job has moved farther away.
This inertia is a key factor in New York’s housing shortage. One East Village real estate agent told me that only 20 to 30 units are available in the entire area any given month."
7
I can only laugh at the landlord lobby saying that there will be less incentive to renovate apartments. In my twenty years of renting in NYC, I've never had a landlord lift a finger to fix anything that wasn't forced on them by regulation, and even then sometimes repairs weren't being done. One time when I didn't have hot water, the landlord simply told me, "Call 311."
9
YES! I am so glad that governor Cuomo took this step! I only hope the rest of the governors will learn from this action and support similar legislation in the rest of the states. Only way to make sure people can pay fair rent given that the wages do not seem to keep up with inflation.
3
I can't understand why the real estate industry is so surprised Cuomo would sign such a bill- there are more tenants in NYC than landlords and they vote. Besides, Cuomo has shown time after time that he is anti-business. Taxes go up each year but it is never enough for Cuomo- now there is congestion pricing. Before he was against legalizing marijuana but now that he thinks he will be able to tax it he's all for it. Yet, if you look at the roads there are potholes all over the place. And even though we are the most heavily taxed state in the nation he doesn't have enough money for New York's share of the Gateway tunnel.
I have no doubt that by the middle of this century a city in Texas, where there actually is free enterprise, will overtake New York City in population and in pre-eminence
4
When I worked in real estate management decades ago, I visited this couple's rent controlled apartment to inspect a repair. They were in their early thirties and one of them had inherited the apartment from a relative. It was a small studio with eat-in kitchen.
We got to chatting, they were both working solid middle class jobs, and somehow it came up that I asked if they were thinking about children. A shocked look came upon both their faces and it was the wife who who came out with something like: "Lord no! we decided against that years ago, it would mean having to give up their rent-controlled apartment"
That pretty much defined the mindset of the myriad of rent controlled/stabilized tenants I interacted with in my years managing many hundreds of apartments.
8
@Glenn
Considering our current political situation I’m puzzled you didn’t supplement the word abortion into your tale to make it more impactful.
Its past time NY state developers considers people making less than 200K per year. If any of their fortunes are halved they will still be wealthy. Bah to them. May they pay
5
Albany is restoring mostly old rent rules, less so creating new rent rules.
Albany is mostly restoring rules it abolished in the 1990s. The Times writes about the shock now felt by owners because Albany "would abolish rules that let building owners deregulate apartments". That reporting ignores history.
Because writers and readers often forget history, let me remind readers of the shock felt by tenants in the 1990s when Albany first abolished the rules that prevented landlords from easily deregulating. Governor Pataki and the NYS Senate created this gift to landlords: the last quarter century has been a hellish experiment for tenants, while lining the pockets of landlords.
9
The bar scene in Casablanca "I'm shocked, shocked to discover that abuses that might be remedied by legislation has been going on here" and then the flunkey hands him an envelop saying 'Your winnings, sir".
3
These new laws are going to be devastating to and at the expense of the .01 percent of New York City residents. Actually that's perfect, since it will improve the lives of 99.99 percent of New York City residents. Let's hope there will be more legislation out of Albany that is this lopsided.
11
I am fortunate to live in a Rent Stabilized high rise where my rent is at 75% of the Market Rate and the building is about 20% Stabilized and well kept. I volunteered for a Democratic politician who suggested that I attend a Guidelines Board meeting. While I am sure my Landlord would like to receive a market rate from me the problem seems to be with the smaller landlords who are receiving much less than 75% of market rate and not being profitable enough to maintain the buildings.
the problem seems to be with the
4
Rent regulation isn't income or means tested, meaning that anyone who happens to enjoy these low rents can have or earn any amount.
Why do these particular renters get this benefit, which they can pass down to their kids and their kids' kids, while everyone else (including essential workers such as policemen and firefighters) have to subsidize them through higher market rents or to commute from distant locations? Why are these renters privileged over one else?
How is it fair that rent control enables a lucky Wall Streeter to enjoy living in the city while having extra income to spend on luxuries and frivolities while police officers, firefighters and emergency room nurses have to commute from outside the city because rent control/stabilization has driven out all other affordable housing?
15
@JSD - Rent stabilized apartments, which are the majority of the apartments in question, are not passed down through families. They are passed on to the next renter The stabilization is attached to the apartment, not to the person.. Therefore, with this new legislation rent stabilized apartments will still be in existence should your kids and their kids choose to move into one.
3
I am so tired of real estae developers’ and landlords’ threadbare arguments that they will not have any money whatsoever to for fill their obligations to tenants if any more regulations are put in place.
in every major city in this country residential landlords have been getting away with murder for far too long. There are real people living in your units, sometimes paying over 50% of their income in order to live there.
My message to all landlords and developers: The people who live in your apartments are not fodder for your willful extraction. you are the landlord, not the overlord. There are limits. in the interest of urban balance and preservation, your currently extortionate unsustainable business models will be extensively challenged and reformed. If you do not like this, perhaps you should sell your real estate holdings and choose another business.
It is time for a new age of public housing. The poor and middle-class have already suffered multiple lifetimes worth of callous unscrupulous pillaging by an elite private sector.
10
Real Estate and rental agencies all over the country seem to follow the same guideline to exploit tenants at every possible and also seemingly impossible means. And local laws are almost always with them as they always have huge clout with local politicians and city councils.
Local development projects always side with them to benefit them financially at the cost of local community and nature/environment.
That need to change, sooner the better.
6
I've lived on top of a walk-up for many years in an old tenement building. Some apartments were rent regulated and had some very old people living in them. But the building was well maintained and newer apartments were renovated. The rules I've seen in the accompanying NYT article seem way over the top to me and will allow families to pass along apartments forever at almost no cost. The inability to take a vacated apartment, renovate it, and charge market rate is gone - did I read that right? That's not even logical.
There are abusive landlords and there are abusive tenants. That's what the courts are for. But these laws strike me as over the top.
Read https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/nyregion/rent-regulation-laws-new-york.html?module=inline
17
Will the legislature introduce bills to freeze the property and income taxes the landlords pay, since they have frozen the income of these people? I very much doubt it.
As long as costs continue to go up, including higher wages for employees caused by the legislature increasing the minimum wage, and income is not allowed to rise due to rent control bills, something has to give. It is not a threat, as some have made it out, for the landlords to predict that first upgrades and, latter, repairs will suffer if the rental income is frozen.
Rent control can only work if it is part of a completely government controlled economy, and look how well that has worked out in other parts of the world.
13
@mikecody - very true. I am a landlord. I offer my properties to qualified tenants in "as-is" (basic) condition for below market rent. If they want upgrades, they need to pay market rent. Nice things cost money.
9
Venezuelan apartments rent go up a million percent each month.
1
@Sharon Nice things like heat and running water?
1
It is easy to see that there are two sides of this coin, but each side disregarding the other does not help the situation. I would like to think that there are some in the Real Estate Industry who see that making a profit and providing quality rental units can be accomplished at the same time, but I am not sure the other side see that as a possibility. Just as I am sure there are tenants who maintain their rental units to include doing minor repairs on their own and eating the costs. Instead we hear the extreme side of each spectrum of individuals in this market.
Solutions to the issue really need to be integrated, but in the free market this will not always be the case. Think about how Transportation plays into the housing issue, and people who work in the City actually live near their jobs. An integrated solution could solve the Transportation issues and housing issues, but then those who have made the billions on Real Estate in the City would be left high and dry.
This brings me to my point that is a Free Market is truly not Free. Years of paying legislators to create loopholes for Real Estate Developers use has come home to roost. These same Developers were shocked when they couldn't persuade the governor....really??? How about the legislators and the governor make real reform, and find integrated solutions to handle two of your biggest issues. Because as we know, it has been infra-structure week in Washington for years and there isn't an infra-structure bill!
3
There is no way that private landlords can build new buildings and fix old properties without charging market prices which unfortunately are way beyond what the average city worker (teacher, fire department, police, retail and restaurant workers) can afford. The only way out of this puzzle is for the government to build or heavily subsidize rental properties. The average person does not need high-end fixtures, but would be happy with a clean and safe place to live.
8
@Lorne Berkovitz
Isn't it a problem that rent regulations don't actually focus on helping teachers, firemen, police officers, or retail and restaurant workers?
It just benefits those who happened to be lucky enough to be in particular apartments at a particular time (and their children and their children's children). These renters could be bankers or heiresses for all the city government cares.
16
@JSD I get that. I had a friend on the upper east side who had a 2 room studio (railroad style) and payed $200/month. But in the long term, if we want more affordable housing the government has to be involved somehow. When market value for a 2 bedroom apartment is around $2 and 5000/month (depending on location), ordinary families cannot live in the city.
3
For some apartments, where the rent is
very low , as the tenant is residing, in the
same apartment for many years, i.e.
tenant is paying $600 monthly, and according to the new law , there will be no allowance for
improvements, (just minimal) , no allowance for vacancy, it will be more economical , to leave the apartment vacant, when the tenant
moves away eventually.
As this low rent , doesn’t cover , for the basics,
like water and upkeep.
This will reduce the number of affordable apartments, available in the long run.
9
This is a defining moment for NYC that says that money isn’t everything, and perhaps, other cities will get the message that to allow only market forces to control has had dire consequences for many cities, such as San Francisco.
3
@Isle. Apparently money IS everything to the tenants. Do you think landlords are in it for charitable reasons?
3
@Isle San Francisco has very strict rent regulations. New York has not allowed market forces in many decades. You do realize NYC is already the most rent regulated city in the US? That this is pushing New York further into the lead as the most regulated market? That we ALREADY have 1M units under rent regulations? How well has that worked for us? Many cities have no units under rent regulation and have not seen soaring rents. Sometimes we need to realize our “solution” is actually the problem. Doubling down on an already bad policy is not going to do us any good.
3
It is really hard to take at face value that these sophisticated business people and political operators were truly surprised by this legislation. So what’s the angle?
3
I don't know what the answer to spiraling rents is, but the ease with which the well to do and powerful can call legislators and the governor to sell their position is a crisis for our democracy.
Every government representative should wear a body camera and live stream every interaction they have regarding their political position.
Powerful developers should have their power limited to one vote in the general election, like everyone else. If they want other voters to support them, let them make a case to the public.
3
What are the main factors limiting new housing production in the city and what can be done about them?
How would pro-tenant changes to regulated leases affect production of market rate housing stock?
How much new regulated housing if any is being built and how will the new laws affect it?
I guess it's my fault I understand so little about all this - but I hope NY Times will do more and more analysis pieces re: housing.
3
At their core, these laws are essentially a tax on rental property. Does anyone pay attention to who ends up paying taxes? Hint: it's not the middle-man, it's the end-user. ALWAYS.
Just look at tariffs: we, the American people are paying for the tariffs on Mexican and Chinese goods. The retailers just raise their prices!
Trying to manipulate a market by limiting and punishing supply is mind-blowingly dumb. Enact laws that encourage supply to meet demand, otherwise you are really just hurting renters.
7
@J c
Where in the heck is the new housing in NYC going to be built? Isn't that part of the problem? Same in San Fran?
A big thank you to Cynthia Nixon. Her primary campaign for governor last year against Cuomo made the governor realize the perils of being a transparently bought and paid for puppet of the 1 percent while riding the coattails of his family name and only pretending to be a Democrat. The U.S. is in its second Gilded Age, looking more and more like the Philippines or Brazil of North America. Let NYC landlords get their way completely, and they’ll make the city look like Manila or Rio—tiny islands of opulence surrounded by utter degradation and squalor.
10
@AR. She lost.
2
@Jackson No kidding, really? Of course I know she lost. But all sources I read indicate that Cuomo had to move at least a little to the left politically to ensure the support of Nixon primary voters in the general election. Perhaps that made some difference as well in his decision-making on this particular bill.
2
Kudos to New Yorkers for taking on one of the most elitist and destructive forces in America. It's disgusting that landlords have to be forced to take care of and maintain properties. It's disgusting that they don't value the quality of life of their tenants. More evidence of how American businesses don't do anything to make a better world for everyone.
7
The very notion that the landlord megas could simply get on the phone with the governor is telling. That he would't deal with them is beside the point. Because I'll bet some real money that a few average tenants in NY wouldn't be able to get past the switchboard. Methinks the FatCats aren't used to being ignored.
10
After ten years as a rent exile, maybe I can come home.
2
@bronx girl Sorry all Rent Stabilized Apartment are currently full and no vacancies are expected within your lifetime. Better luck next time.
8
Where are all the realistic New Yorkers? You have incompetent, corrupt politicians as both governor and mayor not to mention the up-to-their-ears in corruption in the legislature and you expect intelligent, efficient and affordable housing? Surely you jest.
6
As a Democrat profoundly disappointed with Mr. Cuomo, I am happy to give him major credit for taking this stand.
And as a former lobbyist, I can attest to the fact that this industry -- through its many advocacy groups -- has long been the equivalent of New York state's NRA, i.e. a lobby that terrified just enough legislators to almost always get their way. And despite all their lofty arguments, many of which they are trotting out yet again, they did almost all their dirty work with cash. Mounds of it.
Well done -- oooh, this is hard to say -- Mr. Cuomo.
9
@Horace Dewey
Its not like he had a choice--there is a bi difference between proactively advocating for something and simply saying "its out of my hands." Cuomo has done the latter -- and he did some of his high-handed sneering/denigrating of the State legislature along the way. Bet he's secretly hoping there are unintended consequences so he call swoop in to fix it for his real estate buddies and do some more sneering at the progressives. In short, I'd hardly call Cuomos attitude "taking a stand."
2
So, can ANY of you so called "property investors" tell me WHY you own rent-controlled properties.
Because if it is, as you ALWAYS claim, not worth it, then why bother?
Then tell us about the tax breaks you love but never bother to mention because you're still making out like a bandit.
9
“It seems to be that the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party is in full control of the state government,” Mr. Martin added. “I think this is the official declaration of that.”
Yes Mr. Martin, I guess the days of paying off corrupt politicians may be winding down.
10
A man went into a steakhouse and demanded a steak dinner with all the trimmings and he couldn't pay more than $5. The manager was called to the front and patiently explained that to cook a steak dinner costs them $30 in ingredients and labor, but that they would be happy to serve it if the man would pay for it.
Instead, the man stomps out and calls his local party boss to complain that he sees all these people go into steakhouses everyday and that, Dog-gone-it, he also deserves a steak dinner. The next day, the party boss shows up with armed police to tell the manager that at least 30% of their dinners have to cost less than $5.
The manager scratches his head and goes to the back to kitchen to start drawing up how he can provide a cheap dinner by charging his regular customers more or maybe making a hamburger option while a couple dozen squatters take seats and start yelling that they want their dinner faster and cheaper. Every time they are served, they complain saying that the price is too high, that burgers aren't good enough, that the service isn't fast enough, and that they expect that their kids will get their seats.
Dog tired, and run ragged at the end of the day, the manager locks up and looks across the street at the crowded Greater New York Metro Cafe which is providing healthy food at reasonable prices and wonders to himself why that food is good enough for everyone else while he is forced to cater to a demanding, complaining crowd of freeloaders .
10
@JSD
If the steak is housing, the problem is that every steakhouse in the city charges more than most can afford. And not buying steak in the analogy means being homeless.
8
@JSD But the steak here doesn't cost 30.00.
While I applaud the clever writing to paint the tenants as a bunch of unreasonable freeloaders in an Ayn Rand dystopia, the reality is that there will always be a fight between what is an acceptable ROI for landlords and tenants. Defining the “acceptable point” will be higher or lower depending on which side you’re on. If landlords were running in the red or just barely in the black that would be one thing.
The fearmongering that they will have no incentive to fix buildings is laughable as the incentive to renovate/repair exists as far enough to ensure stability in occupancy rates - not to bring value far enough to hurt the bottom line.
Also I hope you considered in your fine example to compare a perishable food good to housing is that it failed to take into account that those awful socialist ideas like agriculture subsidies brought price stability to food prices. Something to keep in mind next time you try to use that one.
8
Time to invoke the party line--" Millions will suffer, if the uber-rich don't have their way". But oh dear, nothing is trickling down but "golden showers."
9
Kudos to all the commenters here willing to argue for a landlord’s right to grind you under his heel. Brought to you by the same people who leave apartments empty while humans suffer outside homeless. Go cruelty!
8
Aww Mr Durst, sad rich man with his fat tie knot sitting in the lonely chair overlooking Bryant Park.
7
Power to the people!
2
When did we become a nation of free loaders wanting and demanding other people pay for our stuff I want subsidized house, free college, free medical, welfare, food stamps how about working for what you need not demanding other landlords or tax payers provide for you and your life choices. If things continue Andy you force the tax payers to leave New York who will provide for you. If you can’t afford New York move. I plan on getting out of here soon not because I can’t afford it but because I am sick of forking over my hard earned money in the form of taxes to people who don’t want to own their life choices.
11
What you’ve failed to understand is that a great many people want their tax money to go to people and services that need help and subsidy. It’s called compassion.
4
@Tom Baroli
I want my compassion and money to go where I want ,the charities and people I want and deem worthy not people politicians are pandering to
4
@EAH
If you do not make enough money to move out of NYC and you do not make enough money to afford rent, what should one do?
1
Want to know first hand the extent of landlord abuse? Just stand in Central Park and face Southwest. What you see are 3 massive sliver of a building rising more than 50 stories built solely for the use of absentee billionaires and foreign oligarchs to shelter ill gotten gains. How can these newly constructed buildings benefit anyone other than the developer? Look closer and these buildings appear to be giving the middle finger to the City at large. They ruin the skyline, residents don’t contribute to the welfare of the the City, and these ‘pied a terre’ detract from what could have been new housing construction for those squeezed middle class. Now look again, who’s getting the finger now?
8
Good on you Cuomo!
1
So the elected officials have in a very rare occasion passed legislation in favor of the majority and we are all surprised. The US democratic model has benefitted only the rich for so long that we forgot how democracy is supposed to look like.
8
Has everyone enjoyed the modest increases in rents around the city in the past few years as new construction in LIC, Downtown Brooklyn, and Hudson Yards has helped stabilize increases? Well, say sayonara! These new laws are populist lunacy at its finest. History suggests that measures like this don’t work and are damaging, yet here we are again, trying the same old tired ideas.
6
In the future, the Supreme Court could very well rule on the constitutionality of rent control under the 'takings' clause.
States and localities could still impose rent control, but property owners would have to be compensated.
6
The Supreme Court upheld the city’s rent control law against a Takings Clause challenge as a legitimate response to shortages created by World War II. That crisis has long since passed and the shortages today are the result of the rent control laws, not any external crisis. Accordingly, it’s past due for the Court to revisit the constitutionality of the rent control laws.
4
This is an excellent reminder of why, in a democracy, people, stakeholders, lawmakers, businesses, etc., should always strive to work together and play nice with both sides, as often as possible. If you don't, it will come back to bite you.
6
Douglas Durst, Richard LeFrak and William C. Rudin are all multi billionaire .01 percenters. They are crying wolf. A given rent model only supports certain investment criteria. If rents are stagnant or drop, so do land prices thus allowing for continued development so long as there is demand for housing.
11
"Real estate industry groups said the bills would do serious damage to housing in the city by reducing incentives for landlords... to build affordable new ones."
This is a specious argument. To be clear, a large portion of rent stabilized apartments are those built before 1974. Any newly built rent stabilized apartments are those that have received public subsidy in the form of tax breaks, tax credits, and/or low-cost debt from public agencies.
Developers aren't just building rent stabilized apartments for nothing in return. There's still meaningful incentive to build these types of units. And in any case, the terms of the subsidies they receive are often more restrictive than those in the new rent regulation legislation, so the effect will likely be more muted than is claimed.
9
Everything Cuomo does is a political calculation. He stands for NOTHING. He is more invested in his family brand than the general public. Special interests, please step ahead of the line. Andy will never have the iconic adulation of his father who could also be politically petty. Once Andy lost his cherished IDC as his firewall, he has been hanging waiting for the wind to blow to give him a clue. If he is now compelled to serve the will of the People, then better late than never. And, God bless the grassroots Progressives who have relentlessly opposed him.
5
They did not get governor's promise of help after 15 minutes on phone with him.
Funny thing, I can't get him on the phone at all!
And I always vote.
18
Rent regulation protects a tenant from another potential tenant that might be willing to pay more and not from the greedy landlord. All prices are bids among interested parties for scarce resources. The only way to protect someone from the actual cost of an item or service is by passing part of the cost to someone else. Prices suppression under socialism causes scarcity, as has been the case with apartments in rent regulated markets in the US. Positing landlord greed as the reason for high prices, or shouting people before profit, will not produce housing as it didn’t in communist societies after WWII, where scarcity was the norm, and the trading of apartments between tenants, was the only way one could move. Regulation in NYC favors those in place without consideration for their financial condition, and discriminates against newcomers, such as millennials. It encourages the favored to hoard apartments far larger than their need.. By artificially fixing prices, it prevents refreshing of housing stock and encourages deterioration. Rent control is justified by left wing sloganeering and disinformation. It confers upon some a discount that others have to make up in the unregulated sector, and causes scarcity. All this talk about the greedy, and the needy is simply a distraction. No one can determine prices by fiat, without hurting another worthy person somewhere else. Others pay for these favors granted in the name of social justice. Targeting the landlords, is a red herring.
20
It’s called Democratic Socialism. Stop inflating Soviet style communism with this. People are getting on to these kind of scare tactics.
5
John H. Banks, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, said they "...pass responsible reforms or pass the bill and worsen the city’s housing crisis.”
I believe he's referring to the housing crisis in that the oligarchs - foreign and domestic - are so very overwhelmed with the plethora of uber-luxury housing choices from which to choose, right? Such a dire situation...so many multi-floor, amenity filled buildings with those pesky middle income people with their separate entrances - however do they choose?!
10
Lol!
While I'm not the biggest fan of the real estate industry, and think that some regulation is probably necessary, rent regulation is not the answer. It may be the politically expedient move for progressive politicians, but it's not a move that's really going to solve NYCs housing woes. Rent regulation effectively removes housing supply from the free market, making housing more expensive for everyone else who can't get a rent regulated apartment (and rent regulated apartments don't always go to those who need them the most).
If housing affordability is the main problem, there are only 2 ways to deal with it: 1. decrease demand; 2. increase supply. The solution is fairly simple--build more housing--and government's role should be in creating the incentives to make sure that the right kind of housing gets built in the places that need it. Not 421-AA with 20% affordable units--100% affordable units.
Nothing against preventing landlords from harassing tenants (which is already illegal with stiff penalties), but the progressives need to get real about their "progressive" policies--in terms of what their goals are, and how/whether their policies can actually achieve these goals (which requires understanding the business you're regulating). If they can't, and their policies routinely come up short, then the movement will not ultimately be successful.
12
The real estate industry is blinded by the sight of out of control rentals for the Uber-rich who have taken over Manhattan and who are staking claim to an ever widening reach into the other boroughs. Ordinary folks are relegated to long commutes on the broken public transit system with multiple transfers and deteriorating schools and housing. If the landlords were motivated by the need restock middle and low income housing, they should have worked with legislators on incentives to develop that housing stock. Instead, as has always been the reality, greed motivated the quest for skyrocketing rents. A close look at the new construction luxury market in NYC reveals a Potemkin city of overpriced (built at sky high construction costs) vacant units, while the demand for affordable housing goes unmet.
Developers and owners always cry that tent protections prevent upgrade of affordable units; but they really are seeking to drive up rents.
22
Rent regulation protects a tenant from another potential tenant that might be willing to pay more and not from the greedy landlord. All prices are bids among interested parties for scarce resources. The only way to protect someone from the actual cost of an item or service is by passing part of the cost to someone else. Prices suppression under socialism causes scarcity, as has been the case with apartments in rent regulated markets in the US. Positing landlord greed as the reason for high prices, or shouting people before profit, will not produce housing as it didn’t in communist societies after WWII, where scarcity was the norm, and the trading of apartments between tenants, was the only way one could move. Regulation in NYC favors those in place without consideration for their financial condition, and discriminates against newcomers, such as millennials. It encourages the favored to hoard apartments far larger than their need.. By artificially fixing prices, it prevents refreshing of housing stock and encourages deterioration. Rent control is justified by left wing sloganeering and disinformation. It confers upon some a discount that others have to make up in the unregulated sector, and causes scarcity. All this talk about the greedy, and the needy is simply a distraction. No one can determine prices by fiat, without hurting another worthy person somewhere else. Others pay for these favors granted in the name of social justice. Targeting the landlords, is a red herring.
4
When middle class people can't afford to live in the city they work in, things must change. Hopefully, this is a meaningful and long lasting start of protection for renters from the incredibly corrupt real estate business. It's long overdue.
11
they can move. or their employer can paid in more.
1
Welcome to the new world of progressive socialism. Politicians don't worry about right or wrong, true or false, but simply what they have to do to stay in power. I agree that NYC does not need another 50 story condo that costs $5,000 a square foot however landlords should be able to earn enough money to pay for those repairs that will be mandated by the city. It is interesting to see tenants taking a stance against middle income workers. I guess a decent living is desirable as long as someone else pays for it.
12
Slumlords like VED PARKASH (no. 1 evictor in the Bronx) will now know that tenants have been pushed too far.
Slumlords will no longer:
1. have a blacklist for those tenants who rightfully take slumlord to housing court;
2. pass inflated MCI's (to be 2% rate instead of 6%) onto tenants forever. Remember they already conspire with the contractors to pad the bills;
3. have deceitful practice of "preferential rents" whereby a lower rent than legally permissible is first given only to be pulled away suddenly charge full rate when lease is renewed;
4. immediately hike rent by 20% after a tenant of 7 years residence leaves;
5. use force to evict. Instead slumlords would be punished from $1,000 to $10,000 per violation;
6. use the "owner use" loophole for more than one family member which slumlord has used to evict tenants that challenge them.
And the rules are permanent therefore free from politics.
What's not to love?
10
@In the Know
A more direct summary of your points are now a landlord:
(1) Cannot choose their counterparty and cannot even avoid renters who engage in abusive or frivilious litigation.
(2) Cannot adjust their revenue to reflect their expenses.
(3) Cannot get out.
(4) Fail to provide a lifetime of cheap renters to their renters.
(5) Deal with squatters.
(6) Preference their own family over renters hostile to them.
4
New York City landlords wouldn't be in this mess if they had not done such a lousy job of providing affordable housing wanted and needed by millions of ordinary people in New York. The industry has had years to come up with an approach to this, but have failed and refused to do so. The housing situation has only become dramatically worse. Now, the Legislature has stepped in to impose its own solution. Landlords and developers have nobody to blame but themselves. Stop complaining and start providing some alternatives.
13
the picture sums it up well. people over profit. problem is, this is a failure of the public sector's inability to create public housing or some other voucher system. removing value, limiting profit, or any other limitation of private party is takings. period . it's legislative theft and not acceptable. it's wrong, immoral, and simply not appropriate in the western tradition.
if the state wants to evoke eminent domain and pay fair market value, do so. otherwise these obscenities will further diminish this broken state.
8
As someone who was born, raised (in a rent stabilized apt. in Brooklyn), and still lives in NYC, I have always found it strange that a rent stabilized or controlled apartment can be passed down to a relative, has always seemed crazy to me. A person who can possibly afford a market rate apartment gets this gift? Why should he or she get rights to something they don't own? Why don't I get that chance to move into that apartment?
I now live in Forest Hill, Queens. Around the corner from us is Forest Hills Gardens which has a gorgeous prewar apt house in the middle. Rent stabilized. I said I'd like to live there and was told by a real estate agent that not even the Pope could get in there. That's how tightly controlled the "pass it down to your child" culture is.
28
People need to accept the fact that because they simply exist, they do not have an inalienable right to housing in the most expensive metro outside of San Francisco. Distorting the market via legislation hardly ever works, and landlords hold all the dice.
Taxing unused units to get them on the market seems better, which would raise supply and lower demand, thus creating lower prices, instead of implementing price controls.
I hope the NYT keeps on top of this story to see its impacts in a few years. They tend to talk about liberal legislation once it passes and never the consequences.
16
@Scott
Distorting the market via legislation hardly ever works.
Distorting the market to benefit landlords in every scenario is the system we now have and landlords love it and refuse to allow it to change.
2
@Scott - Then I guess the people who CAN afford to live in expensive metro areas don't have a right to plumbers, teachers, restaurant workers, street cleaners and all the other people of modest means who actually make the world work.
4
Cry me a river the Real Estate Titans will continue to build for the market that interest them the rich i.e. Hudson Yards, Billionaires row. They have not been involved in building middle class rental housing in ages. The crisis for this city is the loss of middle class housing. This city can not function without a middle class it can not be Rich and Poor classes only.
We need to build new Mitchell Lama cooperative housing for the middle class a radical notion and where do we get the land to build this new middle class housing? We look at NYCHA developments that are so passed the point of warranted renovation and demolish them like we did decades ago with slum tenements. This will create the needed building space we float City municipal Bonds for the construction we insurer rents are high enough to cover operating expenses and the bonds.
Andrew Cuomo has no eye on the Presidency but he would like a fourth term as Governor a term that eluded his father. The city is his political support the home of the New York State Democrats. The upstate Republican's watch as residents leave cows do not vote. On the other hand the city continues to grow Democratic. Deblasio is off on a fairy tale candidacy for President. No we do not have to but the tax burden more on the rich in New York but neither let them claim the last dime in our pocket.
7
I don’t get how this is supposed to work. If I own a building and I pay my maintenance staff better than a living wage and I maintain the building appropriately but the cost of labor (because I pay my staff well), goods and services (paint, sinks, drywall), property taxes, liability insurance, and etc. in the city rise 3-4% a year but I am capped at raising my rental rates...something will have to give...won’t that be labor or maintenance because the other costs are not controllable?
I don’t understand why people believe that I, as an owner of a good or service, should NOT have the ability to charge whatever I want for offering that good or service (monopolies excluded).
17
@Levite
Yes, you don't get it. YOU don't get it.
If you do as you conditionally claim, which is never done by any landlord, you won't be in business any longer.
3
The Rent Stabilization Association represents that mass of relatively smaller Mom and Pop landlords standing most to lose with the new rent curbs. It's a bit hard to see how the mega developers of such places as One World Trade Center and 3 Times Square are much affected. How many rent stabilized tenants are ensconced in those places? Fact is big real estate at that level is very much in the drivers seat, operating our Mayor like a veritable ventriloquist dummy. Also, the reform minded legislature declined to go after the low hanging fruit of more immediate concern to the Dursts of the world: pied-à-terre tax. If anything this legislation will help accelerate the replacement of Manhattan's remaining five story walk up buildings with more glass luxury towers quite immune to quaint rent regulations.
6
I have lived in a rent stabilized apartment for 40 years. I'm grateful for the low rent and therefore, I make improvements when I can. Landlords have an obligation to maintain their investments, not to coddle their tenants. A person who owns their own home thinks they can "take it with them," a renter takes pride in returning it in better condition so the next tenant can have it and do the same. Landlords need to get low interest loans on capital improvements: roof, elevator, plumbing, and upgrading electricity so older buildings aren't fire hazards. They don't need to make money on those improvements, but at the same time, they ought not to lose money on them either. The whole city profits when the buildings are safe and sound, not just the private sector and the landlords.
6
Please, someone help me understand: Why is do renters think private investors (i.e. landlords) should subsidize their housing?
Why are landlords “greedy” when they seek to make the most profit their investment can achieve?
I thought we believed in the “free market” in the USA?
Are these renters turning down pay increases at their own jobs in order to keep prices down on whatever they produce for consumption?
I think I pay too much for a computer.
Should greedy software engineers have a salary cap so that We The People don’t have to pay so much for a necessary product?
And how about greedy advertising executives?
They definitely add to the price of all the necessary items I need—
Why is owning an apartment building or even a duplex (in LA someone owning 100
units or 2 are under the same rent control rules) different than another kind of job?
13
@VoodooChild
Are these renters turning down pay increases at their own jobs
What pay increases?
Once again, someone understands nothing about economics.
4
@VoodooChild
Are these renters turning down pay increases at their own jobs
What pay increases?
How is it different? If you have to ask, you sure don't know. Once again, someone understands nothing about economics.
1
@Moehoward I really don’t know. So please, explain.
1
I live in a stabilized unit in the East Village and there are thousands of working class, middle class immigrant families and people of all races who depend on their stabilized apartments in lower Manhattan. Presently we are under assault from greedy landlords who are trying to force us out with construction practices designed to make life difficult and dangerous.
Their aim has been to push stabilized units out of regulation so they can rent market rate units to transient tenants who by nature break up the community. Stabilized tenants stay for decades and are the bedrock of neighborhoods—they involve themselves in the gardens, community organizations and PTAs that make NYC what it is.
These legislations not only protect middle class tenants but they also will help preserve the culture of NYC—the reason why millions of foreign tourists come to get a taste of the vibe. It will indirectly help tourism to the city.
10
I'm no fan of landlords but the new rent control law caps rent increases at 2 percent of capital improvements to the building. Virtually all of these buildings were built in 1974 or before and will obviously require major rehabilitation work to stay habitable. This will lead to deterioration of the housing stock that benefits no one. The old rent control laws were working fine, protecting renters and keeping housing stock in good shape. This new law is a terrible overreach.
13
The rent control apartments never hit the market.
the original contact person just keeps subletting to their kids, grandkids, relatives, friends and "never dies."
So there's that plus the substantially below market rents.
I cannot imagine anyone doing maintenance, building new rent controlled buildings, or doing more section 8 housing. Is that is even economical given land and building costs?
What NYC can do, is become so unfavorable to workers or investors or builders or companies, that growth ceases and maybe even contracts. Just set back the clocks and see how long that can last.
10
When will the issue of well off people in rent controlled apartments be addressed. Why should well off people inherit apartments and pay a pittance in rent.
15
Who's greedier? The landlords who are responsible for the expense of upkeep, management, and taxes (no small amount) or the people who want something without having to pay for it?
The "negligent" landlords are responding to the perverse economic incentives the legislators gives them. The legislators are essentially bribing voters by promising them something for nothing. Same legislators, in many cases, who lobby for an increased minimum wage citing a worker's inability to cover the costs of living. Same dynamic applies to landlords, but they are convenient scapegoats.
Money is only a single form of currency. Political currency can be just as powerful and corrosive.
16
As an owner of primarily 100 year old, low rise brownstone or brick buildings of 20 units or less, the guys who really lost are tenants whose expectations of better amenities (dishwashers, washer/dryers in units, air conditioning) being available in buildings other than large modern glass towers. We get no payback for those investments under the new legislation, so, we won’t make them, and renters looking for renovated units will have to pay up in new buildings. Most smaller buildings are owned by small owners, The big owners won, we lost.
Finally, the biggest losers will be our plumber, electrician and carpenter; primarily immigrants, who employ other immigrants who are relatively new arrivals to NYC. This legislation facilitates the Trump administration’s policy on the undocumented by significantly reducing employment opportunities. The unemployment rate among those craftsmen and laborers just went way up, and that population will be forced to leave NYC and find employment elsewhere.
Also,
15
So, if I understand what you’re saying, your only incentive to provide a quality product (rental unit) is more money. Otherwise, becoming a slumlord is your only option?
Why not sell your buildings? I’m sure the property has appreciated no matter when you bought. Why did you get into the business in the first place knowing you’d be at the mercy of legislative changes?
Humm..maybe there never was a real estate “market” and supply just conveniently worked in your favor.
8
@Sensible There is so much construction happening in this city, I doubt the plumbers and electricians etc. are hurting for jobs. 99% of the jobs created in this city seem to be construction jobs.
3
@Sensible
You will maintain your buildings and upgrade their amenities or your property will decline in condition and value. Then you will sell them for far less than you might or try to use some to rebuild others but find that they are too diminished in value to make the great new buildings which you might rent as luxury apartments.
People who praise the free market but expect the public to subsidize them to eliminate their risks are being very inconsistent.
Private citizens (landlords) should not be forced by the government to subsidize another group of citizens,what’s next expensive restaurants made to discount their meals because people want to eat their but can’t afford to. Here’s a novel idea how about lowering our taxes and fees so we all have more money to pay our rents.
21
You can’t compare eating out with housing. This is illogical. Housing is not a luxury, it is a basic necessity.
But you can compare reduced or free lunches in public schools for children. And children need safe and secure housing.
5
@Firemonkey
Living right in Manhattan is a choice, not a necessity. There are a lot of other towns around here which have substantially lower rents
11
@Firemonkey
Living in Manhattan is in fact a luxury. Millions of people pay for the privilege and convenience of living in the City and many millions more have to live in surrounding communities and commute in.
Why do these lucky few renters get the government to take from others so that they get to enjoy this luxury while everyone else has to do without?
12
If these renters think that they are entitled to cheap housing, why don’t just steal from their landlords at gunpoint? At least, that would have the integrity of doing openly what they are demanding the government to do opaquely through the miasma of economic regulation (take money from landlords with the threat of force it they don’t comply).
Alternatively, if these renters truly believe the City owes them cheap housing, why don’t they just check into a homeless shelter? It would seem that openly begging for something you didn’t earn would at least carry more integrity than pretending that you are a financial responsible person while begging the government to take someone else’s property to give it to you.
21
Who said anything about “cheap” housing. How in the world is a 450 square foot apartment for $2000 cheap?
3
For the rent regulated tenants this must bring enormous relief. After a lifetime in the city, I had to leave a few years ago when my building was sold. Both market rate and rent stabilized tenants got kicked out. It broke my heart to go but I couldn't afford to stay.
The problem is that the bill will buy the current rent stabilized tenants a little more time but when that generation dies out, it'll be back to business as usual for the developers and landlords. They got their way for too long while the city looked the other way. In the interim there'll be more tenants in court fighting bogus MCI's and more landlords providing even less service.
New York needs affordable housing for its middle class which doesn't have access to agency help on the local, state, or federal level. While I applaud the bill, and feel glad for the tenants it affects, it doesn't solve the problem completely.
For landlords, affordable housing doesn't pay but, having lived in many small buildings in NYC over many years I've never known a landlord to lose money on them, and some of what I saw was up close. Even if a landlord owned one small building, they always made a profit, and a decent one. So I'm not buying any hardship claims of the large building landlords but also not buying the 'small landlords suffer' argument I hear in the article or the comments - even though tenants are hardly perfect.
5
@Kedi Have you looked at your landlords tax returns to know whether they make money?
2
@Jackson Landlords in NYC are required to disclose their operating margins. The data are the considered by the Rent Board when determining what % rent increase to grant. So yes, we know for fact that landlords in NYC make healthy profits.
@Jackson
As I wrote, "... some of what I saw was up close. "
1
This article only deals with reactions to the proposed bill. But we never really learn the details of the bill and why the RE industry is against it.
8
SRSLY? Why wouldn’t the “Real Estate Industry” be against this Bill? It limits their potential for extracting the maximum amount of profit out of the New York market. Profit-taking which, of course, is the raison d’etre of virtually every Industry in the universe...
1
this new legislation welcomes in the 1970’s where burnt out buildings lined the city and the federal government told new york to ‘drop dead’
protecting the tenants would be accomplished by creating more housing units (good old supply and demand).
with no incentive to invest and upgrade one’s building, the housing stock will fall into such disrepair that the only choice for landlords would be to walk away from their property. so in effect the city will then take over the buildings for non payment of taxes and run them in the same manner as nycha if at all!
this legislation will also greatly affect the construction industry and the local economy, this would be hurting the tenants even more as there will be less apartments available in the future.
rent controls laws are fatally flawed in a capitalist economy and have the exact opposite effect of what the legislation was intended to do. keep rents affordable
9
@allenThat doesn't sound like 'Market Forces, Phil. That sounds like soulless creeps heartlessly retaliating on those who have already been taken advantage of. You apparently are eager for further legislation regarding poor maintenance which should once again get the attention of bitter retaliaters who are apparently looking to have their wallets further lightened. With this result making it's way, it seems less than aware to make threats.
@allen Nonsense. Rent control was not the cause of urban decay in the 70s. And NY has had extended periods where it thrived with virtually the same rent control laws. If rent control laws were "fatally flawed" I suspect we would have found that out some time ago. This apocalyptic language around what is simply a tweak to a long-standing system is just silly.
2
A quick google search on the net worth of Douglas Durst shows he is worth around $4.4 Billion. Yes, billion. Cry me a river! Super wealthy elite developers across the country are making millions on the top of the working class.
23
Our thoughts should shift to the poor real estate barons of New York City, those disenfranchised souls who will only stand to make tens of billions rather than hundreds of billions. Please try to have some compassion and see their concern here.
19
This is a bad, bad deal. Now old buildings and apartments are never going to get renovated. Rights of succession should be voted out
14
This is a preview of what is coming to the national stage. Dems are fighting back against the wealthy who have spent decades gouging renters, buying off politicians and finding any way possible to avoid taxes. Real estate developers are a leach on society.
13
My heart bleeds for the poor oppressed real estate developers and their frustrated attempts to build affordable housing for everyone.
More skyscapers around Central Park anyone?
7
While Cuomo is at it he might want to get his Attorney General to investigate the practice of known as the "rental broker". These are the folks that hold the apartments to NYC's hostage. And to get the privilege to pay a small fortune to live here, these gatekeepers need to get paid a ransom all to open a door for a potential renter. It's criminal, like charging somebody a percentage of their grocery bill for providing the service of holding the door open to Gristedes.
7
Why do these rich people have direct access to politicians? That is the problem. Now they’re crying because they bet on the wrong politician. Wah!
11
I rhink the reason the Democrats are hostile to the real estate industry is obvious. To them, the symbol of the industry is a corrupt operator named Donald Trump.
Douglas Durst’s forlorn expression looks as though someone might have just told him that his brother is a murderer, but he’s known that for decades.
If a bunch of glorified slumlords are so bothered by the idea that they might have to treat their tenants like human beings, then that merely serves as an indicator that they’ve grown way too comfortable with their behavior.
7
Oh, those poor real estate developers. What, did they think that nobody was going to eventually notice that people need to be able to afford to put a roof over their head without working 100 hours a week or living with six roommates?
6
Overdue, but welcome!
3
Who are these developers kidding? The only "affordable" housing that is going up is dedicated for foreigners parking their illicit funds and hedge fund managers.
9
One would hope that these "shocked" landlords have written to the Kushners, Dursts and others of their ilk, to complain about this result of their greedy evil practices against tenants. The smaller honest landlords should as well.
2
Landlords should stop trying to convince everyone that this law will lead to deterioration, apartments are barely renovated under current law. A typical NYC apartment:
1. Badly aligned brown kitchen cabinets and yellow counter top.
2. Linoleum kitchen floor
3. Off-white (yellowish) paint
4. mismatched tiles in the bathroom
5. Illegally converted one bedroom apartment into two bedroom apartment
The only thing that will get the landlord to renovate an apartment is when the vacancy rate goes up and they need to compete for tenants. I am always amazed how much better rentals are in other cities.
Tenants to Landlords....'back to you'
405
@sean
I have lived in many other cities in USA. You are right rentals are much better. The reason is that market apartments subsidize rent regulated apartments. Rent regulation does not exist anywhere except in SF bay area, and more recently in Portland.
Your glee is sticking it to the rich landlord has to be tempered by the fact everyone else is losing except the lucky few.
35
@nydoc
I disagree that rental laws benefit only a lucky few. A stabilized rental market leads to stabilized communities.
Additionally, the spiraling cost of real estate will be held in check because the return on investment will not be based on rampant speculation, it will be based on rental income. That will help small investors from over paying for property.
68
@nydoc this is exactly correct. His yellow paint (probably eggshell white) will be brown a few years into these "progressive" enactments.
14
I lived in a rent stabilized apt in Forest Hills many moons ago and the rent was low and I was able to save money for the future. On the down side, the landlord had no incentive to fix up the building because there was no profit in it for him and the building was dirty, roach infested and in major need of repairs.
112
@NYandNJ The building owner also know that rent-stabilized tenants won't move, so there is no incentive to improve the apartment.
26
@Edward V
Maybe you have it backwards: the owners make it as miserable as possible to drive people out
42
@Edward
Except for human decency and personal integrity.
21
Rent regulation is a terrible idea. All economist agree on this, although for different reasons. It reduces the housing stock, raises the rents for those not fortunate enough to have rent regulated apartments. It also decreases social mobility as a huge number of people do not get married, turn down raises and promotions and never leave the city for fear of losing their heirloom apartment.
Rent regulation, an "emergency" measure passed during the Great Depression has lasted almost a century. It has never been successfully implemented in any city ever. It depreciates the housing stock
Lastly, I am not sure anyone has the absolute right to live in Manhattan or NYC. Who decides that teachers, policeman and firefighters should live in NYC while doctors and lawyers have to travel from outside the city?
14
@nydoc
Who decides that teachers, policeman and firefighters should live in NYC while doctors and lawyers have to travel from outside the city?
You actually said this out loud. Oh pity the poor doctors and lawyers! Oh boo hoo!
1
@nydoc
"Has never been successfully implemented?"
Yet as you note, its been in place for 100 years in NYC and you still live here.
1
@W
If the most socially valued people should live outside the city and travel, we should have Manhattan become a giant homeless shelter for the mentally ill and drug addicted. In the scheme of victimhood, are they not more deserving?
2
Senator James Gaughran, unintended consequences is not the same as extortion. If it's so hard for the private sector to make enough money then perhaps it's time to relieve the developers of their burden and provide non-profit public housing. I'm sure the construction trades don't care who employs them.
4
@mary bardmess- but somebody still owns the land. Are you advocating that landowners should not receive the market rate for their land so that the government can build affordable public housing? Will the government cap the rents on public housing despite the future cost of labor and maintenance? Who will live in this utopian public housing? How will you prevent gentrification and segregation in this public housing?
4
Make it like San Francisco,where the tenants have more rights than the owners. Stop paying rent for 6 months? They'll make the landlord pay you $15,000 to go away. Squat in an apartment that wasn't your to begin with, and they cannot throw you out, heck, that's true even here in Santa Barbara County, squatter's rights.
7
As a landlord (thankfully not in NYC) it is interesting to see the comments. Landlords are investors. Our goal is to make money. We're not philanthropists nor are we in business to accommodate political agendas.
We have invested big bucks, and regularly invest more bucks, just to operate these buildings. Tenants are often unaware of the ongoing and ever increasing costs involved, the ever increasing property (and other) taxes we pay, and the damage we must fix from a few non-civil renters. We are entitled to whatever return we can make, just as you are when you invest in the stock market or any other form of investment.
It is nothing but the end of free market capitalism in the rental market in NYC that this new law enacts. Those property owners are now told to essentially hold those investments to the pleasure of the government mandates and to the benefit of tenants who have invested exactly ZERO to live there.
NYC tenants think they have won; they will not in the long term. Why would I, as an investor, invest in something that I have little control over? Something whereby my ROI is artificially limited, but my risk is not? This will only decrease supply and the quality of the units, not increase it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
252
@Rocky
You make excellent points, and I understand how challenging it can be for the small real estate investor to survive in a city like NYC. But, like many businesses in the U.S., the biggest players abuse the system so it is barely profitable for the little guy--small business owners get squeezed from both sides. The other major issue with free market real estate, especially at the low end, is that it is similar to healthcare, in that price inflation has gotten out of hand while wages have stagnated, and without some government intervention, the poor and lower middle-class would not be able to afford either.
My direct experience as a renter in stabilized buildings that have gone market, despite the efforts of tenants to block it, is that while the buildings did get spruced up a bit, the apartments themselves saw little improvement beyond painting lipstick on a pig, and the 40-50% rent increase was a convenient way to force out legacy tenants and create the yearly churn of new tenants which is the new business model for greedy landlords.
If the price of housing and healthcare constantly rise greater than wages, there is no way to sustain a middle class.
163
@Rocky
Agree. To really bring down prices, you have to make supply meet demand, not artificially punish the suppliers.
We all know there are horrible landlords (note: I am a very small-time landlord). They should be held accountable. I hate to say it, but it's possible that landlords should be licensed in certain places. That way we stop having unaccountable (and sometimes anonymous!) landlords.
Dunno, this is a tough situation because I feel so bad for all the people that cannot afford to live in the places they grew up (I am one of them). But these laws just do not do anything to solve the problem: too few homes and too many people that need them.
34
@Rocky owning real estate in NYC is a great hedge against inflation. A secure wealth builder. My landlord’s family, Eastern European immigrants at the turn of the 20th century, have owned my building for over one hundred years. They own a bunch of other buildings and are very wealthy. They've always been correct in their dealings with tenants, following the laws. They’ve taken the long view it would seem. If they would have concentrated on ROI I guess they could have squeezed out a few more millions. Scared money never wins.
74
This amounts to a massive transfer of wealth from one group to another, against the wishes of the group losing the money. There’s no justice in that.
Rent may be high in one of the most desirable cities in the world, but that high rent is the product of hundreds of thousands of rent negotiations where both tenant and landlord have determined that the agreement leaves them both better off than before.
Once again, the nanny state thinks they know better. They’re wrong on housing, but they’re right that giving away someone else’s money will help them get elected again.
13
@Tim Mosk I think everyone knows when the massive transfers of wealth have occurred. But you can pretend to rewrite history. This is more like returning what has been taken by I'll gotten means. And I'd rather have a nanny state than a Robber Baron State, if I had to choose.
3
Most of us are content to have a roof over our head and live with gratitude for our basic health and happiness. Then there are those who never have enough, who will lie, cheat and steal just to get another dollar....even though they rich beyond imagination. How refreshing to finally see a win for the good guys.
7
Thank you! Thank you! I was lucky enough to move into a rent stabilized apartment back in 2006. With each passing year I saw my friends being pushed farther and farther out into east Brooklyn and Queens. I make a decent living and I am a solid, white collar professional. Without my rent stabilized apartment, I'm not sure I'd be able to stay in the NYC area.
To the landlord sympathizers: NYC real estate is a titanic gold rush. People are making so much money it is criminal. Money is a dangerous drug... if we keep placating these addicts we will continue to lose more and more of our ability to live decent, stable lives.
9
Can NYT call bribes for what they are! RENBY is attempting to bypass the will of the people here and bribe Coumo. we are a bit lucky he is worried about getting reelected and being hands off.
3
In five years the complaints will abound about poorly maintained facilities, etc. You have tenants who are incentivized to stay and landlords who are incentivized to do little by way of upkeep.
Concerning the NY Socialist Democrats; You can't fix stupid.
10
@Truthbeknown Actually you can educate stupid out of people. Taking callous hateful indifference out of people takes a little more time.
Draft two. Please replace my first comment, criticizing this artlce for lack of data, with this comment.
There are specifics about the new and old laws in a second article, which follows this article in the online edition, and which describes each with some interesting detail.
1
If the real estate industry doesn't like it, it must be a good thing. Congratz to the tenants.
6
Durst? Sounds familiar. Is he related to the durst who murdered a couple women???
I am not a socialist but aren’t those guys rich enough? Greedy? Wealth is way too lopsided in this country.
4
If these guys have $800 grand to burn on lobbying, one wonders how they pretend they don't have money to improve existing properties.
You can't take your money to hell with you, gentlemen, so why don't you try being better human beings while on earth?
19
I am always amazed when consumers "win" the first thing mentioned is how this will make the businesses they won against stop doing what they do. In this case all construction will stop. Force insurance companies to cover drugs- they will all go out of business. Car companies to curb emissions they will not sell cars. Really?
Supply and demand that's capitalism isn't it? Someone will step up to fill the need. Maybe they will not be able to make millions of dollars but I bet they still make a few.
11
I see 'poor' Mr. Durst sitting all alone for his portrait photo looking so sad. It is time that the people take their government back and make it work for the people. Let's hope that people like Mr. Durst will one day become enlightened and truly give back to the people in need.
7
Most covered buildings have a mix of market rate and regulated units due to the deregulation of units to date. As a result, landlords cannot afford to allow a building to be run down or they won't be able to rent the market rate units for market rents. What will happen is there will be a slight increase in market rents and some additional co-op and condo conversions as landlords seek to exit the rental market. Regulated tenants will continue to be protected in that situation.
4
This bill makes me feel ill. It only benefits one set of renters to the likely detriment of others. I live in a building which has both market rate and rent stabilized or controlled apartments. My apartment is market rate and I already pay multiples of what the rent stabilized tenants pay. I am at the top of my ability to pay my current rent, and I fear that this bill will cause my landlord to jack up my rent further at lease renewal time to make up for the rent stabilized apartments.
18
So let’s lobby to next address your concerns. One thing at a time. But you’re right. And we your neighbors agree with you.
@JC As someone else noted, either landlords will keep up their properties to attract market-rate paying tenants or they risk losing the money those tenants could provide, as well as all other tenants. Of course, if it's LeFrak, and it's one of their buildings in Queens or Brooklyn, they were already doing as little as possible and will continue to make only the legally-required upgrades while raising the rent. Desperate-for-housing New Yorkers will keep paying for lousy, roach-infested apartments in buildings where the hot water may/may not work, elevators are constantly out of service, and the walls are so thin you can hear your neighbors snoring (true story). I see absolutely nothing changing.
2
Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees to fight such legislation, the real estate moguls should invest in the business they are allegedly in, and serve their customers.
21
They should save their money so they can build in non rent controlled areas without tax breaks aimed at supporting affordable housing. There is money to be made elsewhere and they owe nothing to anyone. Things change, it is the nature of life.
4
The fact that the developers have contributed millions to legislators to protect their "fiefdom" speaks volumes. Government is for the people and is not to protect monied interests.
19
I don't buy the argument that this will disincentive the building of new housing in the city and further the growing housing crisis. There will always be someone who wants to build; it just might not be these upset developers.
18
As i understand it, the “greedy real estate developer” is actually developing mostly high-end condominiums that sell to wealthy people for often millions of dollars. I am not aware of any nyc-based developer seeking to develop or own rental units that are aimed at anyone other than very solvent professional individuals. Why would they do otherwise?
The dream of living in Manhattan or San Francisco on a middle class income is wishful thinking. Middle class people don’t regularly go to expensive restaurants or support expensive shops, galleries or other high-end pursuits. To suggest that middle class or working class life should be somehow preserved in these hyper-expensive locales runs completely counter to how this great country has succeeded over the generations: work yourself to the bone and maybe you will have a shot at the “good life” if, in fact, that’s what you want.
7
It still should be possible for the average Joe to live in Manhattan or SF. What makes NYC such an exciting and dynamic city is the diversity of people. If you give up the idea that it’s a melting pot and make it a hub for the wealthy who shuttle between restaurants and home in chauffeured cars then what are you left with?
2
If anything, this article should fuel demands for campaign finance reform.
New York City has been in controlled by real estate interests for four decades now. They have shown no mercy for "regular" New Yorkers and have instead driven up rents such that young people just joining the job market, working class, middle income, public servants...you name every group that earns less than $100,000 per year, cannot live comfortably in New York City. Instead we've had to be satisfied with lotteries which give people access to the few moderately priced units landlords are required to have in otherwise "luxury" buildings.
The whole system stinks to high heaven and it's time it were overthrown and undone.
29
If rents weren’t kept artificially low, there would be more units available. People who can afford them would live in them. Apparently soon a landlord with 6 units should have to subsidize the rent of someone with an income of $500,000 per year.
11
@Robert, no one that makes half a mil is gonna live in a 5 floor walk up w/o a washer dryer.
7
The point is that you could be a Billionaire under the new rules and still live in a regulated apartment.
Just another example of how morally corrupt some of the proposed revisions are. Before this law, you could ONLY make $200,000 to be able to qualify for a rent regulated apartment. Now there are no income limits.
3
@grabbyg
Have you seen what is happening in East New York, Brooklyn? After the city rezoned the neighborhood, it was mandated that the only affordable units can be constructed. Developers like Hudson Companies, Gotham Organization and even B&B Urban exist, as developers to create affordable housing. And affordable housing in East New York is based on AMI, which in that area is $37,488. So units are being created at 40% and 60% of this AMI. so yes, so it might not be affordable FOR ALL, but it alleviates some of the issues we are facing.
As a native New Yorker, I do believe that tenants have been taken a advantage, however, this is not the answer. This does NOT address the issue of the supply of affordable housing. There needs to be a better balance. Thoughts?
6
From the comments I have read in the NYT Picks, it seems that this law was framed to support tenants in New York City and hold large real estate corporations to account. I would like to know how this law would help the WHOLE STATE, not just the great city. Do the regulations hold for small owners who rent the apartment in the house in which they live? Suppose a landlord is renting the house of a parent living in assisted care until the inevitable end and sale of the property for probate? Are there any right for the land lord when tenants destroy parts of the property?
I have lived in an apartment that was not heated well in the winter and had an ongoing problem with mice. I understand the need of r protection some tenants need. Yet I still wonder how this law will affect small pensioners who have a n apartment to rent.
2
The law is protects only units already under rent regulation. It applies only to buildings of six units or more. It will have little effect on vermin and heat in buildings where landlords are making a good faith effort but could be a godsend to rent regulated buildings in which landlords are withholding heat and maintenance in an effort to illegally force out regulated tenants and drive up rents and/or sell the building.
1
So the landlords trot out construction workers who bemoan possibly losing jobs. Excuse me while I shed tears.
How many of those construction workers live in NYC? How many of them pay NYC income tax on their wages from working in NYC?
Precious few. So why should residents of NYC care?
6
The government wants to fix the housing problem but it also doesn't want to spend a penny to do so. Instead, it comes up with these types of laws that don't involve any government money and don't solve the problem.
The government should put its money where its mouth is. Spend what it takes to help those who need it. That would take courage and vision, so it won't happen. Instead, the public gets sleight of hand.
10
The difference between Republican law makers and democratic law makers couldn't be more stark. The democrats try to do things to help other humans, they solve problems, look for solutions, and try to stem the worst aspects of unfettered capitalism. Republicans on the other call the democrats socialists, they have spent billions trying to turn the word socialist into a dirty word...it's been money well spent. It really is amazing how the republican party thrives. Just about everything that makes America what it is, the best of America has come from democrats, what would this country be without social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, rent stabilization, food and drug regulation, pollution controls etc...all programs started by Democrats and passed over the obstruction of republicans. . The fact is that if this country was given over lock stock and barrel to capitalists it would be a country not worth living in.
So how do the republicans do it? I think Trump answered that for all time:
"I love the poorly educated."- Donald Trump
11
So the landlords are claiming that they’ll let their rental units fall into disrepair if they can’t jack the rents to market value at will? Are they not allowed to deduct repair expenses from their taxes? Can they not depreciate their assets to lower their taxes? Do we the taxpayers not subsidize these practices? Poor, poor landlords and developers.
16
Actually these investments are probably in your retirement plan as well.
8
"The phone call capped a humiliating moment for an industry that had long reigned in the state capital."
New York City real estate developers long reigned in the state capital by donating to upstate Republicans, who overrode the clear will of a majority of New York residents on real estate issues affecting New York City residents.
So now they are shocked, shocked, that democracy is functioning, and that the real estate laws finally will reflect the needs of people who live here.
We do not need more $200 million apartments in 1000 foot towers that throw shadows across the oasis of Central Park. We need apartments where the school teachers, nurses and firefighters who devote their lives to the residents of the city can afford to live.
23
The landlords, no matter what they say, make millions each month off their investments. The cost of protecting Rent Stabilized apartments will hurt them where they round off their accounting errors. The landlords will groan from the side of their swimming pools and a month from now, get back to the business of keeping their buildings up to date and making themselves the richest people in NYC.
10
It's way beyond time for this change. The argument about no repairs is nonsense as I live in a rent stabilized apt and, despite the current so-called laws, for years, serious repairs and addressing mouse and bed-bug infestations, water leakage, mold, etc were/are not addressed. I hope the new law will is strong enough to change this and the rental laws for a livable space do not remain toothless. Also, fyi, for the NYC Dept of Buildings who showed zero concern with our one elevator recently out over one week!
8
One set of laws the legislature is powerless to change is the laws of economics.
Price controls always lead to shortages.
If the voters, and their representatives, ignore these laws, the iron laws of economics will have the last laugh, and, as always in NYC, millions will suffer.
15
Apparently price decontrol didn’t work either, or should I say that it did work in either pressuring poor people to leave the city and for the young people starting their careers to double and triple up in flat shares.
2
This is great for people who have apartments, especially those who make over $200,000. It will do nothing for the homeless.
7
Well, the "Titans" might be in shock, and rightly; but what about the many peons who own a few buildings and try to provide safe, well-maintained apartments, pay for upkeep and property taxes, and still make a small profit?
12
The real estate industry - the ones who take our tax dollars for their luxury developments with barely a nod to middle income housing while they reap billions - is shocked. I guess I'm a little shocked too because, finally, some sane adults are running the place and are putting some fair and balanced legislation on the books. You know, the kind that benefits regular folks rather than just oligarchs.
21
There's precious evidence showing rent controls leading to more affordable housing. In fact, progressives have created a Prop 13 scenario in NYC.
By removing economic incentives for landlords to make mprovements and having it cost millions to buy out renters for new construction, focus will be only on building high-end units because there's no profit in anything else. Imagine signing a contract that is practically eternal -- nightmare for any business. And every New Yorker has scores of stories about how the existing system is scammed by renters who sublet, have high incomes or second homes elsewhere.
21
Anyone who actually understands how buildings work and the investment required to keep them running knows this decision will be ruinous for New York's older buildings.
24
Glad to read, Rent Control in NYC, will continue to survive and hopefully be expanded to include other NY metropolitan cities, in the future. Rent Control, has been under assault by wealthy landlords for decades. By the way, these same landlords, that received huge Tax breaks under the Republican, welfare for the wealthy, Tax Reform Act. Then they turned around and used that windfall to try to buy more political influence in Albany. Good work, Gov. Cuomo, protecting the tenants, and not falling for the wealthy landlords, pay to play efforts. Kudos!!!
11
I have no sympathy for real estate developers, but this won't help NYC. No new housing will be developed unless it is exempt from rent controls, and existing landlords will cut costs (think maintenance) to keep them below rental income.
20
Plenty of new housing will be made as it is made now. It’s called market rate housing and there is a glut of construction in both Williamsburg and Greenpoint where a two bedroom flat cost you $3,200. These apartments are free of rent control and more and more are made everyday.
1
Strike one: Amazon stalks off angry that unions dared to try and organize their workers.
Strike two: Landlords with more than 5 units in a building (required to qualify for rent stabilization!) weeping they didn't get their way again.
Waiting for strike three: Corporate funded Democrats lose primaries - or bye bye Biden.
11
If the real estate industry has "long wielded major influence in Albany" (the front page says "reigned"), then why does New York have rent socialism at all?
10
Because Rent Regulation when watered down as it has been over the 30 years is extremely lucrative to speculators.
The real estate groups only have their members’ behavior to blame for what has come to pass. The Senate has not hours, but days if not over a week’s worth of oral testimony. It is truly shocking and eye-opening. It’s all on Utube too.
1
@South Of Albany Rent regulation is "lucrative" for investors??? There have been posts here about people having to sell brownstones because they're losing money with the same family of tenants staying for three generations. Obviously it's in the interest of owners to abolish rent socialism altogether.
I think it might help to avoid using left-wing slurs like "speculators" and "landlords." Lenin and Mao shot millions for allegedly being "speculators" and "landlords."
Attention people: Landlords around the country has imitated it's gov't by no longer maintaining their building in exchange to pocket more money for themselves. Also did you know landlords only have to pay a %3 income tax? Why won't the Times even mention that?
3
How about humbling rather than humiliating? They are not the same. And how about a pied a terre tax?
When co-oping emerged it became possible to have one's cake and eat it as well. (1)
Urban redevelopment -federally subsidized-- cheap and badly designed single or double story houses in the outer boros is/was an entirely wrong-headed way to go about things. Charming European villages mostly sport three or even four story buildings! (LEARN).
Finally, why are the homeless from everywhere else coming to NYC? (We just got here from NC. We're living in a homeless shelter, but they don't feed us.. Can you buy us some food.)
The US needs to do a much better job in spreading the wealth so to speak. (When the bus don't stop here no more, there ain't now way to get out of town. So do I get high on opioids?) I have no idea as to how many people NYC can handle and I am very impressed that an infra structure which is 100 years old in the end functions quite well (better than Paris at rush hour. AI running the subways and buses might improve even that!)
.
Humility is a virtue. Pride goeth before … Rich(greedy) men and the eye of a needle, Obviously a lot of non believers around!!
4
High rents in New York are obscene, no question about. God help you if you’re a senior on a fixed income. The real estate industry is capitalism at it’s worst, just ask our great leader.
13
@Jordan Davies
Most rational people don't pick the most expensive real estate in the world as their desired place to live and then complain about the prices. Live somewhere else. Someone needs to say it.
8
@Jordan Davies
Trump may have to declare another national emergency and quash this bill.
1
the mostly laughable sentence in this article is that this will keep developers from building affordable housing. When was the last time a developer built affordable housing. It is the greed of the Realestate developers that has brought us to this point. Perhaps this will help keep some affordable housing from slipping away because of greedy of landlords. Developers do shoddy renovations to raise rents, and deregulating rent controlled apartments (Kushner, yup that's you).
66
I have always wondered what “affordable” housing means! Affordable for who?
2
Impossible to build developments with entirely affordable units in nyc due to the high land, labor, maintenance costs.
If all units were affordable, it would be called “NYCHA”. And thats not working out so well.
2
One quote in the article vividly demonstrates why the real estate development and rental industries lost this debate:
“It seems to be that the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party is in full control of the state government,” Mr. Martin added. “I think this is the official declaration of that.”
This is so far from reality, and such a counterproductive thing to say, that you are left with only two options: that Mr. Martin is completely out of touch with the social and political realities of New York, or he doesn’t rally want to engage in honest discussion.
Ignorance or bad faith, either way it is truly offensive.
587
@Cormac it is entirely possible, even likely, that he is completely out of touch and does not want to engage in honest discussion.
34
@Cormac
AGREED.
So easy for Mr. Martin to demonize... seems to be the "norm" given current national leadership.
If people in Mr. Martin's position would make the barest of effort to discuss reasonable compromise versus being nothing more than a "barking dog" in the night.
29
@Cormac
Martin is ignoring the many, many tax benefits, aka "corporate socialism" engineered for and enjoyed by real estate industry that continued to be shouldered by the public.
88
safe, affordable and adequate housing is an infrastructure problem needing a Green New Deal solution. Cuomo should get on board, and fortify himself from pressure and influence not of his making.
9
A study a few years ago by the New York Times (I believe) showed that by far the main beneficiaries of the various forms of rent control in New York (and elsewhere) were long-time white middle class renters in upper-middle-class neighborhoods where the discrepancy between market and controlled rents was the biggest (Greenwich Village and the Upper West Side were the leaders). Conversely, little benefit seemed to accrue to poorer families in poorer neighborhoods. I saw this first hand when I lived in a prime block on West 10th Street in Manhattan, the only market renter in a five apartment brownstone. The four other apartments were rented for well under $1,000 each to single, professional people in their fifties, several of whom made six-figure salaries. I do not believe the terrible real estate situation in New York would be anywhere as bad as it is now without rent controls. I have seen this play out in other cities and countries and, primarily for these reasons, I am uncomfortable with the controls. BUT, the greed of the New York real estate industry and landlords has few limits: they have gobbled up insane tax incentives for decades, made life hell for tenants, destroyed neighborhoods and disturbed blocks for years at a time building and overbuilding. This is the result, which they deserve but which the city does not.
13
Poorer families do have a sort of rent stabilization -- vast tracts of low-income buildings spread out in all the boroughs.
2
Come a little east to the East Village/Alphabet City/Lower East Side/Chinatown. There are thousands of working class, middle class immigrant families and people of all races who depend on their stabilized apartments.
This is scary.
3
The rich can no longer buy politicians and legislation to protect their greed and profits any more ? What's happening in this country ? The sad part of this legislation is that these scummy landlords will take it out on their renters, avoiding repairs, maintenance, quality....I hope these tennants advocates are ready for this next battle.
7
1970s NYC is just around the corner, folks.
9
Very unsatisfying, and data free. Would like an artice focused on the strengths and weakness of the current and new law, and whether economists think the new law will work.
21
@David Lindsay Jr. all economists irrespective of political leaning oppose rent control.
1
???? I am no fan of landlords but New York City raises the real estate taxes 5% every year. Where is the money going to come from to pay for this? This bill defies basic economics. Let's see New York City limit their real estate tax increases to the same level they are limiting rent increases
15
This new rent regulation system will still allow owners to make capital improvements in their buildings and be fairly compensated for them.
What it will not allow is for tenants to asked to pay in perpetuity for the same improvement.
It will not allow the Jared Kushner's of the world to buy a rent stabilized building and attempt to push existing tenants out.
This law will not harm honest landlords. It will harm the Trump - Kushner wannabees.
The next thing that the legislature should do is develop a funding source for a new generation of affordable Mitchell-Lama co-ops.
10
Simple supply and demand. Keep prices down and no additional supply will come on the market. Everyone cheering this decision will eventually not have a place to live. Rent control has always been a failed policy everywhere it has been tried...and eventually abandoned — but New Yorkers cannot see the obvious. Given the politicians they elect, this is not surprising.
9
The question is whether or not the number of additional people that get to remain in (relatively) affordable housing (10,000 people per year or more?) is worth the decrease in the number of very well or better maintained units and the related decrease in: (i) real property taxes for the city (based upon a lower value of rent stabilized buildings) and (ii) economic activity for tradespeople that have worked performing MCI's and Individual Apartment Improvements.
6
A weak article focused on politics but seemingly indifferent to policy. I kept waiting for the Times to offer some analysis on the proposed legislation and the industry’s argument. Are there analogous laws in other municipalities that provide insight on the likely impacts of the legislation including possible unintended consequences? Unfortunately, I remain poorly informed.
13
The truth always lies in middle. Strict rent controls help tenants but hurt small business that would be upgrading buildings and apartments, beyond just “clean and habitable,” in a competitive rental market.
If you support the little guy, think of them too.
11
Let's start a crowd funding campaign for these "real estate moguls in shock".
What is really shocking is, that is took so long to realize that people have to live somewhere. And somewhere means kind of close to where the work is and not 2 hours away. And there should be some money left so that you can buy some food too.
4
This legislation is great for those who are lucky to live in a regulated apartment. But it does almost nothing for those of us who live in market-rate apartments.
I live in a market-rate apartment in an Uptown Manhattan building that is being Kushnerized by the new landlord. We've seen minor, unneeded "improvements", leases not being renewed, rates being jacked up in the market-rate apartments, bedrooms being split in two and long-time family tenants being kicked out in favor of young groups of renters who are used to a dorm room style of living and will pay higher rents.
Other than the removal of the black list, I don't see much here for market rate renters. We will pay for the luck of regulated tenants.
261
So you want the regulated tenants to have your problems? It’s true you won’t be helped much, but the alternative of penalizing others so your misery can have company is flawed. Nothing is achieved by raising their rents to match yours. The landlords would never lower yours because they get more money from them. We know that from experience. The next step might be creating a tax break for renters like you to alleviate your burden paid for by billionaire developers and their buyers who likely spend most of their time not in NYC, but gallivanting around in private jets to their private beaches while laundering income through the Cayman Islands.
69
@Sam This is why rent regulations shouldn't have been abolished in the first place. I do feel sorry for people (mostly young) who got stuck with the so-called market rates. Years ago, when thousands of apartments were de-regulated, proponents predicted rents would go down. As we all know, this never happened. This is what's fueling the drive of tenant activists today. I wish you and all market-rate tenants luck - and the energy to change things.
81
@Sam
"But it does almost nothing for those of us who live in market-rate apartments. "
But there likely would have been a lower rent apartment available to you if the Republicans hadn't had run the Senate in Albany for so long. Vacancy decontrol combined with unneeded "investments" (eg ripping up a lawn and planting scraggly trees as was done in Stuyvesant Town) to raise rents has allowed wealthy developers (like the Kushners or the Speyers) to snatch hundreds of thousands of apartments out of the reach of the middle class New Yorkers
62
It's good if you already have a nice place to live in NYC. For anybody new, there will be less and less available, and it will cost you more and more under the table to get anything. This is a bill that benefits old people and long-time residents at the cost of young people and newcomers. Chalk one more up for the privileged.
.
Housing shortages only get better one of two ways. Either more housing is built, or people move away. By treating the symptom (high rents) rather than the cause (not enough housing), rent controls and regulations make the long term problem worse. The people who move away will be the poor and the poorly skilled. That's an interesting approach to dealing with poverty from the progressive left.
.
NYC will become more of what it is already: a gated community for the wealthy, like San Francisco. Once again the progressive left has come up with a solution for poverty which tells the poor to move to Texas, where they can afford to live. Look at the history of migration from NY and other blue states to low cost red states if you don't believe me. Blue states shouldn't complain about how red states treat their poor people if the net effect of the blue state solutions is to make poor people so desperate that they have to move to red states. In California they live out of their cars; in NY, they move sooner. Let's see how many more poor people red states have gained over blue states with the next census.
14
SF has done away with rent control or weakened rent protections. Your argument (I presume taken from real estate talking points) is flawed.
1
New York City is assuredly not a gated community for the wealthy. Parts of Manhattan are, but these are not gated. In my experience, they are highly trafficked by all sorts of people.
Take a drive from New Jersey over the Verrazano Bridge to Brooklyn and explore the farthest reaches of Cropsey and Foster Avenues, Kings Highway, Bay Parkway, Linden Boulevard, and all streets radiating out from them. There are many more neighborhoods besides these where working-class and lower middle-class people live and -- wait! -- even own their own homes.
And that's just Brooklyn.
Tired of pronouncements by people who do not know our city.
2
As a former NYC building manager, with no connection to NY real estate any longer, and a genuine Democrat...a couple of points.
Extremely tight rent regulations may seemingly help the chosen few (relatively few) people in rent regulated apartments, BUT it mean owners will reduce investments in new hallways, facades, painting, exterior cleaning (back to ugly brown bricks), kitchen cabinets, bathrooms, ETC. There is very little incentive to do that, despite MCI (major capital improvement increases which tenants fight you on, and with returns that don't pay any better than the owner investing in stock market). The reason there is little incentive is because these tenants aren't going anywhere, since they are often paying a fraction of the market rent, so why build the Taj Mahal with no return on investment? I wouldn't and neither would you. If a tenant leaves, the apt. is re-rented in 20 minutes due to it's continuing below market rent, so no need for landlord to upgrade....other than 20 bucks worth of paint.
So, that means BILLIONS of dollars yearly is not spent in the NYC area on plumbing, electrical, carpentry, wallpaper, kitchen cabinets, electrical work, etc, resulting in less jobs and 100s of millions in less wages for people in all those profession, plus their accountants, lawyers, dentists, etc. Literally Billions less.
Is that visible quickly...no. Is it ever visible...probably not, but it is there nonetheless.
323
@Phil, perhaps, if the real estate "investors" were not making money hand over fist, without delivering a single piece of "added value" your points would be valid.
the owners are obliged to fix their buildings anyway.
and, if it as you maintain ony affects a few, what is the issue?
sounds to me like this should have been done years ago.
250
@Phil "relatively few" people in rent-regulated apartments? The article quoted over 1 million apartments, over 40% of NYC rental stock - am I missing something?
167
@MJ There are about 3.5 million housing units in NYC, including rentals, houses, condos, coops.
Those not in rent regulated housing have to pay higher taxes to support schools, fire and police protection, etc, because the lower protected rents result in lower building valuations. So it is protecting a relative few at the cost of the others. "Relative" is relative.
45
Being a landlord is actually a real pain at times, but the landlords in NYC have created the conditions for this change to pass. When your shady practices make it into TV as a central part of a Marvel series (“Daredevil”) you might want to rethink your business model. And if your only response to what looks like common sense protection is “now we just might have to let your building fall into decay and disrepair” then you might want to have a talk with your priest, rabbi or spiritual guide about the state of your soul...or lack thereof.
794
@Roy
You've hit the issue on the head.
The two camps are:
- landlords, afraid their "investment" will become less profitable. They see a free market issue.
- Tenants, afraid their homes will become untenable, who see a human and social rights issue.
They're coming at it from such different places.
27
@Roy best comment!
13
@Roy Why would landlords sink money into their properties to upgrade and repair them when they know that that money will never earn a profit due to the existence of rent controls?
They're not cajoling or arm-twisting by talking about buildings falling into disrepair. It's simple math.
All this policy will do is exacerbate the process of barbelling the residential market because the 60% of free market apartments and profits from new developments have to balance out the 40% of rent-regulated apartments that get less and less profitable over time as everything but rent inflates.
This results in a housing stock of just two options. The first is super high-end luxury free market units with ever-increasing rents which only the wealthy can even begin to think of affording. The second is dilapidated rent-regulated units that never hit the market because nobody leaves them because the deals are too sweet even with the ceilings collapsing.
A continually widening gap between the two options grows and the middle of the market, where "normal" apartments for "average" people should be, vanishes.
Ultimately, since tenants rarely leave the rent-regulated apartments and developers only build luxury apartments, the wealthier and wealthier are the only people who can move into and stay in the city indefinitely, which is exactly not what most people want.
10
Why should Douglas Durst, Richard LeFrak and William C. Rudin be able to reach Governor Cuomo on the phone, when Joe Tenant can't? That in itself is a serious distortion of democracy. One dollar one vote.
1080
@whaddoino
Here's a better idea: NO MONEY to vote. That, sir is actual democracy.
True democracy is not built on your wallet.
63
@whaddoino Thank you!!! I'm not sure why this wasn't the first comment because it's all I could think of while reading this article. The fact that more commenters aren't questioning this common practice just shows how used to institutional corruption the general public has become. I wonder if I'd get put through to my governor if I called his office? I think we all know the answer.
32
@whaddoino That was my first thought too!
We need 100% public funding of elections and a 100% end to gerrymandering (think concentric circles).
33
It’s become a rare occasion these days when elected representatives actually pass legislation that benefits constituents. The next battle will be with greedy landlords, who are already signaling that they will retaliate by not performing normal maintenance. I hope tenants will band together and fight such inaction in court and that judges will act swiftly and appropriately.
576
@LIChef The problem is the constituents won’t benefit. Nobody who relies on housing will. These new regulations are bad for everyone and particularly bad for the future of NeW York which has already seen its share of bad political action like driving Amazon out.
8
@LIChef
If tenants want landlords to perform basic maintenance on apartments, then they should pay market rent. Tenants in rent controlled apartments are greedy, they should pay their fair share. The landlords are victims of legal theft.
2
As a teacher with a rent stabilized apartment I feel much relief. I’ve always worried I would lose my home and not be able to live near my school, or anywhere in the city. I do worry that landlords will use this as an excuse to neglect their tenants. Hopeful the state will go further and make sure this doesn’t happen.
647
@Jessica
Dear Jessica-
Your vital contribution to the city is exactly the reason we need rent stabilization.
I do hope that you will be able to remain in your neighborhood near your school for many years to come.
We need you and your colleagues.
We certainly don't need the multimillionaire real estate developers who are destroying family - oriented neighborhoods with luxury high rises bought by LLCs
128
As a registered nurse in a rent controlled unit, I share the same feelings.
45
@X
Your sentiments are valid.The issue is, would you invest in something where you would make no return? The lack of return on capital Improvement will become a very big issue over time. Landlords do not own real estate for altruistic purposes, it is a business, and there is no shame in that, much as some people believe it so. Without the profit motive, new homes would not be built. Full Stop.
23
It's amazing how government can work for the people when Republicans lose control of the state legislature. They had obstructed any bills that would help tenants even though most of those Republicans do not represent a majority tenants but mostly homeowners. Within five months of taking back the state senate in Albany the state government is working for the people again.
21
Anyone commenting on this who hasn’t had to deal directly with an NYC landlord really needs to pipe down. Renters are really at the mercy of a cynical and greedy group who can in most cases dramatically increase rents on a new lease with no warning or negotiation. This isn’t ‘socialism,’ this is regulation. And it’s long overdue.
82
@Rensselaer
"Regulation" might involve mandatory notice requirements, disclosure and other protections to ensure that renters aren't taken by surprise. These kinds of permanent price controls discourage the construction of affordable housing. Landlords will build nothing but condos now. This law helps those currently in apartments regulated at low rents, but ensures that the affordable housing shortage will continue. I am a New York City renter, by the way. I don't like high rents, but they are the result of decades of price controls on rental housing. This legislation makes a bad situation worse.
8
@Rensselaer AMEN. I once went to jury duty in NYC, adn they asked the pool if anyone had had a bad experience with a landlord (to eliminate people who might be biased from the pool for that case). EVERY hand went up.
23
Amen. I’ve lived in a rent stabilized apartment in Manhattan since 1975 and have seen firsthand the shenanigans landlords have done in order to force tenants to leave their apartments ie, inviting drug dealers and prostitutes to ply their trade in the hallways, armed goons attacking elderly ladies as they open their doors, workmen removing toilets from bathrooms. The list goes on and on.
238
The next change that needs to happen is the repeal of the self certification program that was created by Rudy Giuliani that allows developers, architects and engineers to rubber stamp their own faulty designs and bad construction. Too many garbage pails with serious and dangerous defects that are passed off as buildings have been built in this city since 1995.
This process allows self expediting of approvals. Registered Architects and Engineers may self-certify that a project complies with all applicable laws and codes, and the project can be approved without a full review by plan examiners at the Department of Buildings and other city agencies.
Yeah. That sounds like an honest system, doesn't it?
These developers have gotten away with way too much for way too long and do nothing but stuff money in their pockets and make people's lives miserable. If there's anybody that needs oversight it's the developers and their buddies.
11
@Bryan
"Yeah. That sounds like an honest system, doesn't it?"
No it doesn't, but incredibly enough it replaced the far worse system of 100% corrupt city inspectors. There are, surprisingly enough, far more architects and engineers that still have integrity ( or a shred of it)
2
Legislators need to take a look at the tax incentives given to landlords who gain monetarily by leaving apartments and stores vacant. This effects the quality of life for all New Yorkers. When the rent for a 20 table restaurant rises to $30,000-$40,000 a month, when the rent on a garden supply store jumps from $15,000 to $40,000, the tenants must leave and the space stays vacant. Same with apartments. Someone should count the number of vacant apartments. The postman tells me there are buildings on my block with no tenants for several years.
31
This is a disaster for the city's housing stock and a giveaway to an entitled class for votes. Very sad that alleged "progressives" make the city's housing even worse and more unaffordable.
14
@Osito So, average people who WORK for a LIVING and have been held hostage by the real estate industry are now an "entitled" class? I guess instead of a $10 billion profit, only making $9.25 billion is just toooooo much pain to swallow.
20
I am surprised at the tone and the tenor of the comments. How come that it is not ok to take money from the poor and give to the rich (cap gain taxes are lower than the ordinary income taxes) but it is ok to take money from the rich{?} landlords and give to the poor.
In passing such a sweeping reform(?) rent stabilization bill, the pendulum gave been swung too far and the law of unintended consequences is likely to kick in: roach infestation, leaky faucet, kitchens in disrepair, dirty carpeting, peeling paint etc.
A compromise, a middle way, would have been better. A move to a more equitable solution is what they should have strived for. But we are speaking of politicians in this divided era.
8
The laws have all been going the landlords’ way for decades, to the extreme detriment of renters. Why shouldn’t the pendulum swing the other way for once?
Rents in NYC have been ridiculous for far too long. Way too much money for too little apartment. It seems to me that there is no real housing crisis in terms of number of units. The real crisis is that the many, many units that do exist are unaffordable to a huge swath of New Yorkers.
The other shocking thing about this article, to me, is the bold, open way the quoted industry leaders are essentially saying, “I don’t get it, we gave the governor lots of money and he’s not doing what we want!” As if the system is broken or something.
5
This is a problem that keeps repeating itself in America. Greedy landlords keep taking unfair advantage of their vulnerable tenants forcing the state to step in and bring some relief to the exploited.
The real estate industry brought this on itself. Curb your greed. Treat your tenants fairly. If you can do that the state will be less likely to step in.
19
If the real estate industry is lobbying Gov. Cuomo and crying foul then it must be a good bill for the NY renters. Good to see. It's about time.
24
As a rule, landlords go into their profession to make obscene profits on the backs of their tenants. They aren't selfless do-gooders. It's about time they were put in their place. If only Albany would eviscerate the corrupt legal profession next. A world without lawyers and landlords would be a utopia.
9
How nice to see the 0.01 % frivolous luxury developers get punched in the nose. Love it!
18
@Sebastian
Vindictiveness and resentment do not make for good policy. The luxury developers will still be rich and enjoy their lives. The people who will suffer will be those looking for affordable housing. No one is going to build it with laws like this in place.
4
@aellinnyc the amount of affordable housing that’s been built in recent history is woeful, really just enough to get massive luxury projects greenlighted. I wonder if the amount of apartments that have been deregulated have outpaced the number of new affordable units?
5
@aellinnyc they have no true incentive to build it now as it is. "Affordable housing" in this city is a joke. The numbers are far out of touch with reality and the lottery system is also a joke.
1
Landlords are upset? Developers are upset? Boo-hoo. Nice to see a law that represents the interest of the electorate rather than well-heeled lobbyists.
12
“I’m just a little concerned about the unintended consequences of some of this..."
Ah yes, the dreaded "unintended consequences" routine.
That "unintended consequence" is the INTENDED CONSEQUENCE of reducing the obscene amounts of money lining the pockets of landlords.
Even the term "landlord" is an absurdity from the days of serfdom. They're not lords of anything let alone land. They're greedy (as all capitalists are) little people with a grandiose opinion of themselves.
12
Most people don't have long memories, but I suspect that most readers can recollect the outrage Uber evoked early on when they tried to "explain" "surge pricing."
It really wasn't hard to explain - most intelligent adults (that actually is a pretty good proxy for Uber-users) known action-reaction form science and supply-demand from economics.
But it rankled! A lot! ... So you're levying a surcharge "because you can!" "Isn't that gouging? Or, at least, taking advantage of adversity?"
That's really all you need to know - and REBNY and RSA are the furthest thing from stupid - about this legislation.
When - for arguably 30 years - real estate in NY (like college and healthcare, they have a truly captive audience, so increases that outstrip inflation look a lot like pick-pocketing!) has been as piggy as it could be.
And the fact that it went far beyond increases that reflected scarcity - bribing the referees in our culture that prizes sports is "beyond the pale" - did those landlords in.
PLUS, they probably got cocky when they were able to beat back any change in the treatment of pied-a-terres costing up to half a billion dollars. As with the NRA, there NEVER came a time when they were open to curbs on the truly rotten apples (and there are many) in their industry. Neither were they open to "give-backs" and claw-backs, even when it was clear that (a) they were awash with money; and (b) much of their gains were "ill-gotten."
And yes, I'm shocked that Cuomo didn't cave!
8
Those poor poor real estate developers, what are they going to do? How will they be able to afford to live? I feel no sympathy for them. Walk around this city and look at all the empty storefronts. This is because of them and their high rents. What kind of city is this when there are no places to shop or eat that are affordable? It's because of them!
27
I was hoping to learn how rent control works and why it is needed and some detail on the issue. Got nothing form this article at all.
7
@Bob
Rent control works like any price control: it create a cap on how much you can charge for a particular apartment and a cap on how much and how fast you can increase the rent—all based on criteria and formulas laid out in law or regulation. The result is to take those units covered out of the free market play of supply and demand, insulating tenants from the risk and volatility of the market.
Like everything in the world, this has both benefits and costs. On the upside, the stability and relative predictability allows people (both tenants and owners) to plan more accurately. That makes it easier for tenants to save for eventual purchase or other goals like college for the kids, a new career, marriage, etc. It also allows them to age in place on fixed incomes, or if their careers aren’t highly compensated, or they had bad luck.
It also promotes neighborhood (and property value) stability when times are; rent control was a key part of why NYC didn’t go the way of Detroit and other U.S. cities in the 1970s. Utility is enhanced in the case of fairly inelastic supply (like NYC) where the market doesn’t work to begin with.
On the downside, it inhibits investment and renewal of the housing stock, and reduces income and viability for owners. And if it is only covers a segment of the market (as in NYC) it can “golden handcuffs” people to homes they cannot afford to leave.
1
@Cormac
Interesting. Probably way more than the o.p. could understand - and s/he presumably didn't read it.
Funny. While I like the SOUND of "both sides benefit," I'm very skeptical.
Rental housing may not be zero sum according to a rigorous textbook definition, but it's awfully darn close. You really have to do some pilates-level stretching to conclude that what helps tenants most of the time somehow helps landlords more than once in a blue moon.
And "that's why NY didn't do a Detroit." I hope you're in advertising, because that's more than "cute" - it's bizarre. Yes - for almost everybody who hasn't been priced out of NYC 2020 is "prettier" than 1980. But it surely wasn't "rent regulations" that led to white flight (in the decades before.) Put simply, the folks who chose to buy - apts or more - in the dark days ... took a gamble that financial services WOULD (mostly) stay in Manhattan - along with law firms, publishers and enough other entities so that the City would get yet another chance to reinvent itself.
Boo hoo hoo, the rich don’t get to exploit tenants in NYC, use minor renovations to justify major rent hikes or force our rent protected tenants to build luxury condos... What suffering these developers must endure! I feel sooooo bad for them.
11
When you buy a building with rent regulated apartments the price you pay for the building is less than what you'd pay for the same building if it didn't have rent regulated apartments.
You're not going to buy a building thinking that you could force tenants out so you can take their apartments and sell them or charge market rent.
You knew or should have known what you were getting yourself into. Live with it!
11
Wow....told in no uncertain terms you can't treat people like garbage, raise their rents when *you* feel like it; and forced to do regular maintenance on your *own property*...
Some well off people shouldn't be standing in the way of others trying to climb up the economic ladder in life.
5
RE: Titans of Real Estate in ‘Shock’ Over New York Rent Law Deal
IT COULD BE WORSE. From The Guardain , UK,
"Berlin's rental revolution: activists push for properties to be nationalised"
"Support is growing for a referendum on whether to ban large landlords from the German capital and turn their property into social housing stock"
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/apr/04/berlins-rental-revolution-activists-push-for-properties-to-be-nationalised
To an economist, both the Albany Law and the Berlin development are interesting failures of the free market model . Could it be that socialism is taking over ?
2
A little late, but at last there is something slight breathing room for the poor and middle class in this city!
4
Finally someone stands up for the little guy. I'm sick of people making a profit off other peoples misery in this country. Housing is a RIGHT, health care is a RIGHT, a decent education is a RIGHT. If we can't agree on the pillars of a well functioning society than nothing matters. This sort of legislation should be enacted on a federal level, full stop. And spare me the wails from the real estate lobby- it's not like they were very interested in building affordable housing before the bill was created so who should believe it will hurt them in that endeavor now? Shame on them!
7
The greedy real estate developers failed to react to the sea change that the ultimate greedy real estate developer -the one in the White House-has inadvertently wrought. Their fear tactics about the fall of NYC because of these new smart regulations are ridiculous. There will always be waves of people willing to pay a lot to live in the city , but now they won’t be subject to the arbitrary, unbalanced , insulting policies and prices that always accompanied renting a NYC apartment.
6
Developers are in shock? Good.
A nice supplement to this article can be found here at FAIR, which gets into what "developer" actually means: https://fair.org/home/euphemisms-all-the-way-down/
If the species is to survive in any decent form, the fundamentalist religion known as "the kind of heavily financialized neoliberal capitalism of the past generation" will have to be overturned. Liberals are at least as infected as what we with equal absurdity continue to call conservatives.
1
Perhaps the greedy developers can find money in other places to fund that maintenance and new construction they are claiming won't happen .......Oh wait - why not take it from the earmarked political contributions to the Republican cronies? There....problem solved.
7
Want cheap housing and solve traffic congestion? Landfill the east river
Interesting. These fat cat developers have presided over an erosion of affordable housing in NY City over the decades, lining their fat pockets. Now, they claim that this legislation will hurt affordable housing. Boo hoo to you all. Game over.
7
The Republicans are starting to experience the blowback from electing Donald Trump. Keep it coming!
5
Thank you to the tenant groups. Thank you to the politicians who stood up against the wealthy. This is a day we will not forget.
9
This is making New York more and more like a socialist state. It will just cause New York housing to be even more unaffordable to the middle class. A bad move by a bad governor. No wonder the growth is out here in Las Vegas since the laws are business friendly and just plain affordable.
7
@NVFisherman
Good. Democratic Socialist states do so much better than the crazy crony capitalist rip off the worker states. For example, Scandinavian states run budget surpluses year after year after year, on top of providing healthcare, education, retirement, and 4 week paid vacation by law for all citizens. The real problem of Democratic Socialism is what to do with all the excess money their system generates.
7
@NVFisherman — Let’s all move to Las Vegas, the ever-growing culture capital of Nevada!
2
Why is this story written from the perspective of “the humiliated industry that failed to bribe enough politicians” and not the citizens of NY?
26
Now....who wants to sign up to be a landlord in NYC?
And they all wondered why the Little Red Hen never baked bread ever again....
7
Along with the lunatic congestion pricing tax/theft, this idiocy will lead to further problems in the city housing with a protected few subsidized by many others, who will be leaving the city/state.
Of course the dems do not care because they figure with their refusal to stop the illegal alien invasion they will simply replace those leaving with a mass poor who will permanently vote for them. Of course, the dimwit americans voting for democrats are not sharp enough to see how they are being used to undermine their own future, but in 10-15 years when the city has collapsed again under the weight of its deformed, unsustainable tax structure, some of them might figure it out.
The insane notion that landlords will continue to support their buildings while expense rise above inflation in NY while the rents they can charge are capped - most landlords' profits for the vast majority of the market are low single digits as it is - is laughable. There will once again, be thousands of abandoned buildings the city/state will have to take over, raising taxes for all those who actually pay them driving even more people out.
The democrats, if they ever want to be a viable party again nationwide, need to slam their far left wing that the media is in love with right now and teach them the basic laws of economics.
This is such a stupid idea I am surprised even NY has passed this bill.
10
Amen
2
@bob jones
If only people would leave the city, there would be no housing problem!
2
@bob jones
New York is on a progressive tear. You can always spot a progressive's presidential aspirations by how far left he/she goes.
1
All I can say about landlords after living in New York City is that they deserve this law. I've never met such dishonest and greedy people in my life.
23
Why so few facts about what the new legislation contains?
16
Too bad so sad. No sympathy for billionaire developers ruining neighborhoods with their ugly glass unaffordable luxury buildings. I’ll play them a teeny weenie song on my teeny weenie violin. Next new concept for billionaire plutocrats: taxation for the affordable housing they refuse to build.
9
@Ignatz Farquad
We're going to have more ugly glass luxury buildings, not fewer, thanks to this law. Those condos are free from regulation. What we won't have is affordable housing, because laws like this make it unprofitable to build. So developers will focus on where they can make money. Thanks a lot, Albany.
3
@aellinnyc
They have been saying the same thing for 40 years: unleash the magic of the marketplace, they'll be plenty of affordable housing. All we got was plenty of unaffordable housing, a lot of families forced from their homes, astronomical rents, luxury apartments for money launderers, that ridiculous lottery, and the poor door for the few lucky peons. People are sick of this Bloombergian garbage: everything for the rich, for you: nothing.
2
What is this world coming to when wealthy white men cannot buy loyal legislators? It is just so unfair when their large greasy bribes don't do the trick. I love that Cuomo stayed out of the debate entirely, as it should be.
21
If you are one of the lucky few with a rent controlled apartment, it is great news. If you are not one of the lucky few with a rent controlled apartment, you are screwed in the long term. There is no longer any incentive in New York to build or improve affordable housing. Money and investment will continue to go to high end condos and New York's middle class will continue to be squeezed out. It will be the very rich and the very poor. This is Democratic Socialism at work.
15
I don't live in New York. Please provide data on how many affordable units have been built, year by year, since 1990. Thank you.
5
The "progressives" in NY have just won a great battle. But I am betting that, in about two years, the conservative US Supreme Court majority will rule that laws like this are uncostitutional.
9
@Brooklyn Rube As they rightfully should. Rent control was a regulatory taking post WW2. What right does Government have to say what private individuals can charge for a good or service that they provide, especially in one of the most competitive industries in the world. What right does a Government have to force an ongoing business relationship between two parties? Rent control was and is theft by another name plain and simple.
6
Old saying from a relative in the real estate industry: "On Wall Street there is fear and greed. In real estate, just greed."
`
Have to wonder how willing such specialist interests would accept/compromise any reforms after having it so good for so many years (been a decade since the Great Recession)?
2
What a joke it is to think "...real estate and housing people... were concerned that the bill could reduce the number of units in New York."
This is a lie. They're concerned strictly about the number of luxury apartments they can offer to the rich.
By the way, it's not merely the lower and middle classes that are being driven out by the real estate industry catering to the rich. The whole creative class of artists, musicians, novelists, and actors are being driven out as well--out of all five boroughs.
New York is no longer a place for artists to live and work--except, that is, for the likes of Anish Kapour (who apparently now owns a $14 million dollar apartment in Tribeca) and a few remaining old artists who will soon die off very soon.
P.S. History shows that once the creative class leaves a city, the city dies.
3
@Emile Actually many of the artists are moving to Philadelphia.
3
The system stinks no matter which way you slice it. State legislators not located in New York City should not be voting or governing New York City.
While I hate the fact that my neighborhood has been gentrified into a NYU dorm. Forcing the prices to stay low without forcing landlords to fix the rodent problem I’ve had for 30 years does me little good.
Now at the time of my life where I’m thinking take the buyout and leave the city that option is ruined.
I guess I’ll just keep calling 10 different agencies that show up but are powerless to do anything to fix the living conditions in my building.
5
Once I saw this piece celebrating this victory over the "titans of real estate," I wanted to see exactly what the bills said and imagined how they might affect small landlords.
Institutional landlords can more easily afford these stricter regulations, so smaller landlords should get out of the real estate industry.
I was struck by something. Under the old rules, those earning $200,000 per year could have their apartments destabilized. That rule no longer applies.
Do we really believe that a person or family earning $200,000 per year is impoverished and in need of rent protections?
Apparently, that is what these Progressive Democrat (socialist-leaning) legislators believe.
9
@Barbara try living in NYC. People try to maintain a certain lifestyle. If rent eats up much of their income then all that is left are free walks in the parks, and free internet at the libraries. Anything else is expensive in NYC.
1
@Barbara
"Do we really believe that a person or family earning $200,000 per year is impoverished and in need of rent protections? "
Well, some of our elected officials (or relatives) and other politicians are in these apartments. Koch was even in a rent controlled apartment (!), so this is just to protect their personal interest.
4
The real estate developers of NYC have no scruples. They should consider themselves lucky to have had had such a good profitable run. Real Estate developers and brokers have been making money hand over fist. If they can’t provide affordable well-maintained housing then the industry really needs a gigantic overhaul. They have destroyed enough neighborhoods and iconic establishments in our great city. It’s time for them to play by the rules of human decency.
12
Of course they're shocked, it's a shockingly bad policy. Albany progressive populists care more about scoring political points and signaling virtue than they do in actually addressing the affordable housing issue. It seems that it's easier for activists and Jumaane Williams to stage protests than it is to develop a housing voucher program.
All this legislation will do is to cement a de facto form of ownership among people who have no interest in either risking their own capital or in maintaining a property. This isn't reform, it's forcing market rate tenants to subsidize an entrenched class.
9
When a long term tenant moves out of an apartment to purchase a house or head to a Florida retirement, the unit needs serious upgrading to renovate the 50 year old kitchen, bathroom and electric. The renovation will cost four times the proposed $15,000 limit on apartment improvements in the current bill and will take several months to complete. Who will rationally make this investment of time and money for almost no return? What bank will finance it with no assurance of payback? What new tenant wants to live without the needed improvements?
If the government wants to provide housing benefits, it should bear the costs, not require private citizens to provide services without just compensation. Our city's neglected public housing is younger than stabilized buildings yet needs over $150,00 in repairs for each unit to be paid by all taxpayers.
16
@Kate NYC landlords have made enormous sums of money for decades from the astronomical rents they charge. They and they alone should be responsible for upgrades. To ask taxpayers to subsidize costs for wealthy builders and developers is to think like King Donald Trump.
20
@Kate
It is outrageous to read about 50 year old kitchens, bathrooms, electric as if that itself is normal and unremarkable. Conditions like these are deplorable and unsafe, and they are the consequence of a landlord's abnegation of responsible maintenance.
5
How are these tenants able to dictate prices of another persons property, this is exactly what we don’t need.
I would bet that these people protesting have little to no equity, they have no real estate, therefore, they have no stake in dictating what prices in Manhattan should be, if they don’t have the money to live there, they should move to another area not force property owners to come down to their level.
Not fair, furthermore, I think it is eventually overturned, too much big money and important figures aligned against it
10
@There Yeah, who cares about poor people who can barely keep their heads above water!? Cities are for rich people only.
8
@There, “move elsewhere”? But the affordability crisis has spread across the nation. Who will serve your coffee in NYC? A NJ commuter? Shall we have wealth inequality by city?
“How are tenants able to dictate prices of another’s property?” B/c your property is our roof, our endless hustle, our diminished quality of life.
Tenants have shouldered the burden of this fixed system for too long. Perhaps now landowners might consider advocating for a living wage, since wages have not kept up with housing prices. If landowners want to be part of the solution, they’ll figure out how to build what people need—which are NOT units at ever-rising prices.
8
This law will have unintended consequences, but the current status was too goosed up in landlords favor. Too much greed, and all the freebies/ tax benefits were put in favor of landlords.
In other words, pendulum had swung too much in that direction.
Now the pendulum will swing too much in other direction.
21
Once again the laws of the marketplace and those of unintended consequences are being ignored because of fair concerns for the working poor. Any legislation that stifles a landlord’s ability to adjust its rental income to obtain a reasonable return on its investment, fund needed repairs,and to fairly pursue remedies will have two immediate consequences. First, landlords will raise the leasing standards and become far more involved in the selection of their rental population. Next.they will become much more reluctant to maintain their buildings deferring expenditures until the last moment. The much needed expansion of rental housing is unlikely to occur as the market dictates investor returns, not well intentioned legislators in Albany. A truly more thoughtful approach would have been to target landlord predatory practices and develop programs to assist rental housing developers to avoid undue delays in obtaining approval of their projects,restricting the delays occasions by NIMBY objections, and providing both short term and long term financing assistance.
11
@Michael Ashner I'm not convinced that landlords won't keep up on maintenance and repairs. The buildings are the landlords' investments, so they are incentivized to keep them in a good state or will lose money upon selling.
11
The real estate Mafia has been threatening for decades that higher prices are good for the stabilization of the city while getting rich by the hour. Nice to see what happens now. Will prices plummet? Will housing become more affordable or the price of a Broadway ticket come down form $500?
22
As viewed from afar with no skin in the game, I consider rent controls as a means to let the billionaires of New York keep enough worker bees around to keep them serviced. It would be better for the country to do away with rent controls and let the market encourage people to move to any of the many other livable places around the country.
But at the same time, I'm loving the schadenfreude of watching the real estate industry's bribes to their politicians (a.k.a. "Campaign contributions") fail them in their time of need.
29
I read this story. Nowhere did I see the particulars of the bill. The real estate industry is going to sue, but what will be the legal issues? We don’t know. Why are the essential elements of a story never really stated. We just get the fight over it. This type of story defeats the purpose of getting news to the public.
38
@Lynn Farley It’s in a separate article, at the end of the story.
1
I fought five different landlords for 30 years in the same building in Chelsea to get them to make repairs. I had HPD on speed dial. I can remember winters without heat, including one when it was 8 degrees out, and it took weeks for the landlord to fix the boiler. One time a pipe burst above me and flooded my apartment, and the landlord tried to blame me. And on it went.
Landlords say they now won't have incentives to take care of their buildings? In my mind jail sentences would be only too kind. Most of them never fixed them anyway.
I now live in a lovely guesthouse 6000 miles away--in a place where it's always warm. The trauma of New York City housing runs that deep.
156
@Far from home
More people in Manhattan should take your lead and move out of an area they can’t afford
5
@Far from home
Of course, your propensity to “fight” five different landlords for “30” years speaks volumes about what a ghastly tenant you must have been. HPD on speed dial, indeed.
5
@mrhlwyr what part of NO HEAT IN WINTER did you miss?
19
This was the right thing to do. NYC real estate development is run by about a dozen “Families” that create a cartel environment and that drive up costs to the point few can afford housing in this city. The law will have unintended consequences too. It will become increasingly difficult to get a lease and reinvestment in decrepit rental properties will slow. There is no rational solution except for the one that millions and millions of New Yorkers have turned to, which is to leave for greener pastures. Young bright people should really question the logic of moving here. There are so many nicer places to live where day to day living is not an endless battlefield.
82
This has occurred only because a handful of traditionally Republican state senate seats went to (true) Democrats, partly as a pushback against the Trumpification of the GOP. It shows how precarious the balance of power is.
13
The problem is that of any scarce resource. Not everyone can live rent subsidized in lower Manhattan. In this case encouragement for smaller density minded units seems too sensible. But as a small landlord, I can say demonizing the property investors is just too easy when municipal gentrification through ever increasing taxation, housing regulations handcuffing operations and tenants who don't always play nice goes unobserved. As a property owner risk of loss is all on your shoulders, this while the municipality ultimately owns the real estate. Don't believe me, try skipping a tax payment.
11
“Instead, industry members relied on their traditional method of private negotiations, trying to talk key lawmakers out of the more dramatic changes in one-on-one meetings.”
Yes, the old backroom deal. The most undemocratic of ways to get things done in politics. Together with the millions of dollars in campaign contributions, the moguls have been comfortable in their assumptions that their dominance would continue.
It’s nice to see there might be at least a small glimmer of sunshine peeking through this generations-long shroud of control, and that the renters might see some long-lasting relief, but I doubt this is really the beginning of the Democratic Socialist ascendance many hope.
30
Greedy landlords, like the rich in all areas of American life, have been allowed to reaps massive profits for so long that they consider it their due. No more. The tide is turning, and this is a step in the right direction. If the landlords use it as an excuse not to keep up their buildings, that can be regulated, too. The profit starts when the building is in good shape and the tenants’ rights are protected—not before.
84
@JA
Disagree, just because they’re rich doesn’t mean they are criminals and just because you can’t afford their rents doesn’t make you a victim
5
Rent control/stabilization is essentially a tax increase that is arbitrarily distributed - and does not help those will lower income or wealth, despite well intentions, because it’s not redistributing wealth or income as intended.
While you’re taxing the unfortunate landlord who owns a rent controlled apartment, you’re also taxing the tenant next door who is not fortunate enough to get a rent controlled apartment and has to pay above market rent to compensate the same landlord to operate the whole building.
Those who win are those who have control over rent controlled units, who can still make $200k and pay $15k in rent every year. There’s no fair income redistribution going on.
Large landlords who own multiple units will only be slightly worse off - because they can raise rents on not controlled units and just not renovate the rent controlled unit.
Small landlords are the worst off because they cannot offset the rent control tax of 1 unit with enough rent hikes from the 2 units next door because they do not have scale.
Poor new migrants new to the city, who this law intents to protect, will never get a rent controlled apartment; at the same time no new units are being built because real estate prices stay depressed.
Upper East and Upper West Side are prime examples of this - family friendly neighborhoods that have huge demand, but real estate prices lagged rest of the market, buildings are ill maintained, and no fair income distribution is occurring.
39
@Queens Resident
Manhattan is the very last place a poor, new immigrants should be going, why would they go to an area where most Americans with college degrees in good incomes can’t afford ...... come on, does that make any sense
9
@Queens Resident
There are fewer than 25,000 rent controlled units in New York City. I'm willing to bet that most of them are not occupied by people making $200,000 annually.
I'd also bet that there's not a single landlord in New York City who was unaware, at the time that they purchased their property, that the property included rent controlled, rent stabilized, or otherwise rent regulated apartments.
When you say that real estate prices are depressed all you really mean is that they're not growing as fast as they have been or, at worst, that the market has corrected itself somewhat. I see no indication of the catastrophic swoon in property values that you and others are warning of.
Thousands upon thousands of new (non-regulated) units are being built. I see them all over Brooklyn. They are luxury units, and one reason why they're going unoccupied is because there's already an oversupply of luxury housing.
15
@Queens Resident
As an owner of 3 family property, I actually benefit from rent controls - because market rates are higher than they would have been otherwise. This being said, I still think this system is unfair, inefficient and just plain stupid. If the State wants to help renters, they should pay rent subsidies based on income, instead of passing the burden to property owners.
4
Aw, will nobody think of the poor real estate developers?
“...presenting them with sophisticated charts that purported to show how the proposed measures would erode the city’s housing stock.”
Our housing crisis doesn’t come from lack of stock. Just take a walk around south Brooklyn where new apartment towers sit half-empty and more are on the way. The crisis comes from lack of affordability. And I don’t see where this bill addresses that. It seems to protect only rent-regulated units. I would have liked a provision that added new apartments to rent regulation.
But get a grip, landlords. This won’t make you poor. It will just make your future wealth grow a bit more slowly. Less money for you to leave Junior. And it’s about time as they’ve savaged the city, its skyline and fabric of its neighborhoods in seeking more and more wealth. It’s so lovely to have them put on a leash and I hope it portends of a national trend.
96
@Brooklyn Dog Geek: I am not sure it portends what you think, but the greedy and speculation are ramping up very dramatically and that's how the 2008 collapse started off.
Right up until the rash, the speculators were SWOONING over how high real estate prices had gone.
If you want affordable housing....you need to build a lot more of it. And right now....it is vastly more profitable to builders to build very expensive housing.
A building costs nearly the same whether the units are posh 3 floor triplexes with marble and granite -- or a modest structure with 1-2 bedroom basic units. Same land, same building certificates, same steel and concrete -- only the trim finishes are fancier in the upscale building.
I'd pass a law saying for every luxury building...rather than a few units with a "poor door"...the builder has to construct TWO low-income buildings with a minimum number of units per building.
4
This reminds me of that moment in Atlas Shrugged where the productive creators, led by John Galt, knowing their being undermined by senseless bureaucrats, begin leaving.
8
Allen, I have lived in a rent stabilized building since 1975 in the middle of Manhattan. I am one of the last rent stabilized tenants left. My building used to house artists, designers, actors, mailmen, printers, dancers, photographers, factory workers, teachers. None remain. We make this city work. From my window I can see at least four towers being built that will contain dozens of multi million dollar dwellings and I’m not talking about one or $2 million dwellings but apartments that will go on the market for 10, 30, even $40 million dollars and higher. These apartments will be purchased by speculators and a great percentage of them will remain empty. The people who maintain those buildings will probably have to commute long distances from the outer boroughs because they can no longer afford to live close by precisely because of those speculators. John Gault is a work of fiction.
4
@Rocco Sisto: when the next crash comes (2008 No. 2) .... it will be a tsunami.
And a lot of those expensive buildings (already sitting empty) will be foreclosed on.
Remember that a truly progressive government would not protect a few lucky people in rent-controlled apartments...but build enough affordable housing for EVERYONE. This INCLUDES the power to seize "Richie Rich" properties by eminent domain and turn them into affordable units.
1
@Rocco Sisto Why are you entitled to live in manhattan? There are plenty of other boroughs as well as cities and towns across America that wouldn't require others to subsidize your rent. Why should you be in charge of choosing which professionals live or don't live in your neighborhood? Curious - do you also believe these same workers have an entitlement to live in say, Beverly Hills?
It makes me sick that you seem to not believe in property rights.
It's a big world out there. If you want to control your destiny then move and relocate to somewhere you can afford to purchase your own property. Whatever you do, don't purchase anywhere these types of laws are being passed. Because you will be next.
1
NYC has been unreasonably expensive for average people. This is a step in the right direction. The average people of the NYC walk up buildings are struggling while they’re selling multimillion dollar apartments right next door. And taxes are super high on the working class - the folks with capital gains tax pay way less. That’s not fair.
77
Lest you forget, former HUD chair Andrew Cuomo's fingerprints were all over the housing crisis which led to the "Great Recession". Apparently it was just a warmup for what this debacle portends.
5
@jackinnj "debacle" for whom exactly?
@jackinnj How so? Considering the Great Recession stemmed from mis-representation/mis-pricing of financial agreements with regards to pools of debt; lack of oversight of a shadow banking industry and financial innovation (which Greenspan seem to prefer); from easy credit as well that was permitted in the first half of the 2000s; and a number of other issues related to the financial industry that came to a head in the 2000s, outside of HUD, after 2001...
1
Next up: reforming property tax laws so that a $100 million condo is not taxed at exactly the same amount as a $5 million condo.
154
For once the real estate industry didn’t get their way. Next tactic will be to claim the sky is falling and that they can’t build or maintain housing. Hopefully tenant advocates will now shift their focus to code enforcement and, if the real estate industry says they can’t build housing, build public housing.
109
@Rosary
Dream on. In fact this is a sop (shut em up) from a governor and mayor and legislative bodies that nixed a pied-a-terre tax on the out-of-towners and foreigners who maintain apts. in NYC just in case or as an investment! (Often of course, no one knows exactly who owns the real estate which may well have been a means of laundering cash money from whatever heinous activities these rich, greedy and conscienceless homo horrilibi are involved in.
In the end only a tiny step forward changing the rules on de-regulation that so far as I know are still in place.
In fact, many old buildings in Manhattan really need to come down and be replaced in their entirety. Will that happen.
Many levels to the housing problem. And yes there needs to be more public housing , specifically for the increasing number of elderly - properly designed and priced -- and similar for young uns starting out now that wonderful institutions like the Barbizon Hotel and the Y's are no more.
5
While it’s satisfying to see people like Durst et. al get kicked in the teeth, these laws will do little to alleviate the housing crisis. Few affordable housing units are being built, incomes for most people are declining relative to rents, and there’s a real possibility that existing housing stock will continue to decline. Enjoy the “get the rich” rush while it lasts.
19
@ProSkeptic: this helps only a few in rent controlled units -- built before 1947? occupied by the same family since 1971!!!! that's 48 years, folks!
That cannot be very many people today, I think the article said "22,000" (in a huge city with 9 million residents).
Many of those on rent control, like former Mayor Ed Koch are RICH...have Florida homes for the winter and use the rent-controlled unit as a "pied de terre" or AirBnB.
This is NOT affordable housing for the masses, not even remotely.
This is a wonderful and euphoric moment for the people.
But it's too soon for a victory dance.
The ferocious counter attack by vested interests in the grinding, wealth-transfer extraction industry aka real estate lobby, the rigged system that has prevailed for generations, is not down and out.
This bill is not yet passed and foreboding is the vibe for these next few days. Both Cuomo and the Blue Dog Democratic legislators are lying in wait to weaken the bill. The usual tactic would be to table it, amend it, and pass a toothless bill during a July 4th special session, a holiday when no one is watching.
31
"But one person briefed on the call said the developers expressed surprise at the way the governor had handled the rent issue, and voiced concern about the impact the legislation would have on the construction of new housing. "
Given that pretty much all of the "new housing" we've seen over the past several decades has been in the form of luxury condos in the cities and McMansions in the suburbs, I can't say that the landlords' crocodile tears are arousing much sympathy in me.
463
It's so empowering and hopeful to know that there's still a chance to counter the all reaching and controlling hands of the uber wealthy for the better of most people. It's always been confusing how diverse and accepting of others NYC is while its rent prices make living there unsustainable and dreary for average NYorkers.
lol, as if they were actually going to build affordable housing, affordable to who exactly?
61
You’re right. I have seen ads for some of these new apartments at $3K plus that are listed as “affordable” with a straight face. They require a minimum household income of $80K and require a lottery to get in. Affordable indeed!
18
@Nancy G.
In all reality, if you expect to live in Manhattan, your income should exceed $80,000 by at least double or more
7
@There...That’s fine, but please don’t advertise these units as affordable.
3
Let me see if this timeline is correct.
NYC had rent regulated apartments from WW2.
NYC becomes a bleak city in the 70's-80's and 90's.
NYC starts to gentrify (become more white)
NYC rents start to rise, pushing out locals for gentrified tenants with more money.
NYC rents continue rising and keep pushing out locals making it harder for former residents.
NYC rents rise so much that the gentrified neighborhoods (now white) are complaining about the rents that they are responsible for raising
NYC tenants now get help from State to help stabilize rents they helped raise to historic highs.
So the gentrifiers come to a neighborhood. Strip away that neighborhood's history and residents. Raise the rents to ridiculous heights ensuring that only their kind of people can afford to live there. And now want protection to ensure that they don't get priced out.
Now that sounds like Progress to me!
26
That is not correct.
Your timeline deals with the rise of market rate rentals. The gentrification cut down on the stabilized rents to make way for higher rent gentrified condos.
This bill is protecting the remaining stabilized rents and doesn’t affect the market rate ones which your latter timeline is referring to.
This is about protecting the lower income working families from white gentrification.
Now that sounds like Progress to me!
16
@Chris
Thank you for your response but I will have to disagree with you. I saw what gentrification did to my old neighborhood and I slowly saw the old families being forced out without a hint of guilt from the new residents (not blaming them btw nor should they have any guilt).
I happily left NYC when i realized that it is a playground for people with no conscience (rich and poor). I do not agree with you that Progress is occuring, instead i feel that NYC is falling back into regressive state.
As a former resident, It is no longer my concern though. Having spent most of my life there, I am nostalgic of former days and have left the devices of the city to its new residents. Good luck and be kind to your neighbors, they were there for me when I needed them and you may never know when you need them.
5
@Chris
"NYC starts to gentrify (become more white)" ... hmmm, technically gentrification is money bound- if that seems "white" then maybe that is a different topic of discussion.
So everyone wants to live in the magic kingdom and it costs to do so. Any arbitrary subsidies are just that 'arbitrary'. The only decent solution is a shift to mandated micro units where costs are lowered for everyone by reduced footage. In Tokyo people live in containers- unsavory but fair. Otherwise you are forced to choose winners and losers- that 'I got mine' solution is un-American in my view.
1
This doesn't affect me one way or anymore, but I find it amusing how angry people get about completely removing the all-knowing hand of the plutocracy's free market from completely leveling anyone who isn't rich. This measure is barely a counterpoint to decades of Giuliani and Bloomberg's gifting this city to the rich. Heaven forbid that the people that make the city run, provide it life, character, and culture can afford to actually live in it.
351
It’s shocking when politicians represent the people rather than their donors.
449
Legislators freed to create laws that benefit their constituents! What a great idea. This pendulum swing is a result of too many years of greed. Regular folks have had enough.
205
Nothing makes me happier than to read how special interest did not get their way. Whether this is a good bill or not, it’s great to see that the legislature and Governor were responsible to the people and not beholden to real estate special interests. I think real estate developers in NYC have been far too concerned with building luxury condos rather than affordable apartments. Maybe it really is a new day in NY.
193
Right or wrong, this may be a sign of the times. The nation has swung so far to the right that the pendulum swing back the other way will probably be dramatic, like this.
135
The developers may have contributed millions of dollars, but the renters have millions of votes.
165
@sjs
That is what must really scare the Republicans and the right.
7
@sjs: that is hardly new, however.
Why didn't "millions of votes" do anything SO FAR?
Affordable housing? Think it's about time the developers looked a bit more closely at their efforts. Less money on legislation, perhaps more money put into social housing. Maybe these laws will help them refocus their efforts.
77
I haven’t read enough about the proposed changes, but I chuckled when I read about the landlords concern that the new laws will stifle construction of new affordable units. Was he being ironic? I hope so.
223
Only years down the road will people realize that this new bill is a disaster and in the end does not truly help individuals. Hope everyone wants a dilapidated home!
The legislature did a disservice by not working with the real estate developers and drafting a bill that would protect affordable housing while not making it impossible for the landlords to maintain the properties.
44
@AB The legislature has not worked 'with' the real estate lobby for decades. Rather, they have been worked 'by' them. This might seem to you as if the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, but for many, it is a welcome relief.
25
It's always a good day to wake up and and read that bribery (millions in contributions), extortion (we won't "renovate," i.e., maintain), and heavy doses of front-door access didn't work. It is about time real people had a seat at the table.
693
Now that the Dems are in the majority of the State Legislature, the 99% are finally getting some protection from the depredations of the 1%. It's about time!
584
@Miriam Hahaa. This will not help the 99%. It will help the .001% of people that get to rent one of the regulated apartments when they come available (almost never).
- Meanwhile, landlords won't spend money on improvements to the building because they won't get a return on investment. That hurts everyone.
- The city will collect substantially less taxes to put towards infrastructure and other areas to make the city better.
- Less free market apartments on the market will make the ones that exist (for the masses) more expensive.
There's no rational reason to not have vacancy decontrol.
23
@John Doe
Too much greed/ lobbying by the landlords/ favorable tax laws swung the pendulum too much.
If only, these landlords knew to be a little less greedy, a little less "full of themselves", this may not have come to pass.
36
@John Doe
One other point to dispel: A lot of landlords think hard-work got them this wealth. Frankly, lobbying for tax laws, 0% interest rates that made their housing assets shoot up for doing nothing but squatting on it, while the working-class folk further slide down .
This is why Sander and Warren message resonates. I hope you are not one of the Wall Street/ elite democrats trying to derail their campaigns, like your kind did in 2016 with Sanders.
52