Quick question about rent stabilization

Let's see - there are about 1 million RS apartments, lets say the average discount vs. market is 1K per month. That is 12 billion dollars a year in vouchers.

Many of those 1 million rent stabbed apts are at or above market rents, so no vouchers would be needed. Mostly in just Manhattan does rent stab matter.

"Mostly in just Manhattan does rent stab matter"

I think if you actually look at market rents vs rent being paid, you would see rent stabilization counts for PLENTY outside of Manhattan.

Rent stabilization does not cost anywhere near $1000 per month apartment.

Jazzman, some not insignificant percentage of the problems are because the landlords are scumbags. Voicers won't reduce those calls to 311 or the housing court problems.

Someone on the board probably has the actual number but the DHCR or RGB puts out the median price each year. I know in 2005 the median price for a stabilized unit was $920/month.
My theory is this. That the majority of those who are actually benefitting (that is, they actually have a rent that is significantly below market rate and have an apartment in good condition - that is they are getting more apartment then they are paying for) are those who live in Manhattan and the better neighborhoods outside of Manhattan. To further my theory, I'd suggest that a significant amount of those in Manhattan who have a good deal are making more than 100,000 per year. I'll add, do people really think it makes sense for tax payers to subsidize the rents of people making more than 3x the median income? If so, where do the subsidies end?

Further, knowing our bloated government and having worked with many many city agencies I'm very interested to see their annual cost to the taxpayers.
If we were to eliminate stabilization many in the Bronx, Queens etc would see little to no change in their rental rates. Rich people would see a change but who cares.
Most on this board probably don't realize that low income elderly and disabled people don't pay rent increases - the tax payers pay their increases to the landlords via a reduction of property taxes - so the elderly and disabled wouldn't pay increases even if their rent went up by $5K per year.

Not sure this idea works because I'm not sure of the numbers - but interesting none the less.

Stop whining

Ipoker - "because the landlords are scumbags"
correction - SOME landlords are scumbags - please note that since 311 was invented the number of scumbag landlords has significantly diminished. NYC housing has never been in better condition - never. It will get worse over the next few years as landlords don't have the cash anymore to re-invest into their buildings, but during the next up cycle we will eclipse the current levels.
The outcry against landlords has never been bigger but the housing stock has never been better.
Again, I'm not saying there isn't a problem, as certainly the city should take some buildings away from their owners, but the slumlord mantra is overplayed today.

Finance has a report on the effect of abatements: http://home2.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/pdf/09pdf/annual_report_fy09.pdf. The 421-a is less than I'd have thought.

It is interesting to speculate on RS numbers, though academic as it'll just continue to evolve away rather than be gone in one fell swoop.

http://furmancenter.org/ also has useful stuff. 30yrs had linked to something there on the extent of rent poverty: the huge proportion of renters paying more than 30% of their gross.

"I think if you actually look at market rents vs rent being paid, you would see rent stabilization counts for PLENTY outside of Manhattan."

I did and it doesn't.

Rent stabilization mostly benefits Manhattanites.

i think the tax abatements for new development condos ought to be eliminated, preferably retroactively. i don't see why the city's tax collections should be so diminished to support wealthy homeowners, and to support a housing program that has been both controversial and not very successful, creating only one affordable unit for every two eliminated.

You dumb whore

You think that legal agreements between the state and developers passed through to the buyers should be eliminated retroactively? You just hate anyone who does better than you.

Here's what you said regarding J51 benefits which get passed through to tenants:

"aaflights, the law is the law. a landlord receives benefits under certain circumstances. one of the conditions in this case is that the apartments affected must remain rent stabilized. prior to the luxury decontrol laws rent stabilized apartments, depending on the program, went to whoever was lucky enough to get them, and wasn't generally income restricted."

"the law's a bitch when you break it and get caught."

You are a one sided bitch. You have no interest in actual fairness. You just argue what works economically better for you - keep the people poorer than you poorer, and pull down the people richer than you.

I bet after you went to Yale based on a geographic preference for the Pacific Northwest and then on very heavy financial aid, that in the interim years you've made little if no attempt to pay back the "free" education you received.

You are the worst kind of hypocrite.

hfscomm1. whore? how sexist of you.

yeah whore

Explain your position. Tax benefits going to developers and flowing to tenants, of which you are one, are ok, but tax benefits going to developers who are selling to owners aren't ok.

Explain how you got into Yale and still speak about "irregardless," except that it was a gift based on geographic preference. And explain how your free Yale education is used to stay at home doing nothing, not even attempting to earn a living to pay back what you have for many years believe you are entitled to paid by others.

btw, you really seem to have a bug up your ass about this rs issue. maybe some anti-anxiety drugs?

my retroactive comment was meant as sarcasm. but i guess you're not smart enough to realize that, even though you seem to have followed my comments rather carefully.

you do realize that next year we are facing an enormous tax shortage here? and you think it's appropriate public policy to give huge tax breaks to people buying very expensive condos?

piss off.

No sarcasm. How was it sarcasm? Where was the indication of sarcasm.

You are a liar.

The tax benefits were paid for already by the owners who paid the developers extra for the discount. And the state and city thought there would be a benefit to seeing this development and therefore encouraged the developers.

Explain your position - tax cuts like J51 are ok if it benefits you and other tenants. But they aren't ok if the benefits go to developers building for owners?

Explain it, or admit you are a liar. Sarcastic my ass.

wow, hsf. you're just nasty. one grammatical error and i've been committed to "geographical" preference.

go take a look at your angry little self in the mirror. try to work on that facial rictus, breathe deeply. even you could be a decent person if you work at it.

Tell us, what do you actually work for?

Tax benefits are for tenants like you.

Free Yale education is for you.

Your husband works but you contribute nothing. Why aren't you working and supporting the tax rolls in the city? Why aren't you contributing to the household?

What are you not entitled to?

How come you can't explain your incongruous position?

hfs, i take it you purchased a new development condo? yes, it was sarcastic. as i'm sure many people here who have read my stuff forever would know. of course you couldn't do a thing to the program. which is ironic, no? because it's not so hard to revise the rights (of which you assume there are none) of RS tenants. Luxury decontrol at $250k? too wealthy, let's change it because the landlords would really, really like something lower, so $175k it is.

again, piss off.

By the way, you know you are just a geographical preference. Real ambitious students going to Yale make something of their lives. Real Yale students would get if in they are from NY or NJ or CT and could stand up their pre-college credentials to anyone else. But not if they get preference from Oregon.

Oh yeah, it definitely appeared sarcastic.

Liar.

hfs I don't know how long you have been reading Streeteasy but many of us do not appreciate seeing vicious personal attacks on one of our community's most active and valued members. Disagreements are the lifeblood of SE but we strive for respectful dissent sometimes accompanied with good natured ribbing (see Stevehjx versus Juiceman) although admittedly we sometimes decline to the level of an elementary schoolyard.
You are entitled to your oinions and welcome to share them on Streeteasy. But vigorous dissent does not automatically equal, or justify, vicious attacks.

PS Yes I know I can't spell.

Oh, LOVE how you think that people making $175 need tax entitlements. Let me guess, $175 is ok, up until just where you and your husband earn (or your husband only earns) and then after that level, taxes should kick in extra.

Anyone doing better than you is bad.

Hypocrite.

Liar.

this is kind of fun. you're heading toward carolst levels, which always makes me smile.

hey, hsf, what have you done? where did you go to school? what compromises have you made for family? and how much effort does it take to nurse that inappropriate anger?

piss off.

Thanks Liz, can you explain aboutready's lies? Can you explain why "the law is the law" for her but not for people who bought apartments?

What compromises have you made aboutready? Are you still making compromises, 2 hours a day at the gym, no work, seeking tax benefits for yourself?

like anyone buying an apartment for more than a million would need a tax abatement. you just can't help yourself, can you.

piss off.

Piss off?

Explain your lies.

Explain your lies aboutready.

Tell us why your non-evident "sarcasm" wasn't not an outright lie.

Explain why you say your position is sarcastic and then you go on to defend it.

Liar

hsf, you're just stupid. plain and simple. what lies? none. i'm functionally incapable of lying, much to my chagrin.

and again. what do you do to add value? i view our family as a unit. as such, we add a great deal of value.

bitterness and anger are unattractive traits. seek help.

aboutready, please show me in your post where it was "sarcastic" Show me some indication you weren't lying.

Here's the entirety of your post, tell me how this was sarcastic:
"i think the tax abatements for new development condos ought to be eliminated, preferably retroactively. i don't see why the city's tax collections should be so diminished to support wealthy homeowners, and to support a housing program that has been both controversial and not very successful, creating only one affordable unit for every two eliminated."

Tell me how anyone could see this statement was sarcastic, and then explain to me how if it was sarcastic you continue to defend it.

Liar.

OK, you fucktard. you want me to explain why my comment was sarcasm? because i worked in contract law for 10 awful f'ng years. and my husband is a partner working in contract law and i walk him to work (50 minutes every day) and we discuss this shit. so of course i know you can't retroactively rescind tax abatement rights.

it WAS sarcasm. i'm sorry you're too stupid to realize it.

Your family as a unit? You have one child. Boo hoo, what a burden,.cry me a river. You spend 2 hours a day at the gym, and then the evenings on streeteasy.

You are lazy in your family, you are lazy in work, and you expect your landlord to subsidize you, your college to subsidize you, and the government to subsidize you.

Not only are you a liar, but you are a freeloader off everyone you know and everyone you don't know.

Liar and freeloader.

How was it evident that it was sarcasm? Show me how it is evident that it is sarcasm.

And explain how it could be sarcasm but then you continued to defend that point of view.

Liar

hfs, what do YOU do to add to society?

btw, your "insults" are meaningless to me. i think a buddhist monk has more to offer than most bankers. being a decent human, living a moral life, having a thoughtful and fun marriage, raising a child who reflects those things, priceless. if that is without value to you, well, then you don't have values i'd care to share.

you are so misguided as to think i'd find your comments regarding what i do derogatory. i find them laudatory. i care about my family. funny that you should think that only one kid means i should be scorned.

piss off.

hsf, if you can't get that it's sarcasm, perhaps your enrollment at whatever educational institution you attended involved more than just geographical preference.

hfs, you need to simmer down or fuck off

Yeah, unfortunately you aren't a buddhist monk or a banker. You do nothing. And your husband, a contract lawyer, is not someone to hold up as being better than a banker.

As far as you ONE child. Wow, what a burden. Such a burden, 2 hours at the gym, 50 minutes walk to your husband's work. Let me guess, then you go to the grocery store. Whew. What a day before getting onto streeteasy.

I don't care if you find my comments derogatory. I want to know why you are a bald faced liar. And why you aren't even ashamed by your lies or self-interested point of view under the guise of charity.

Liar

Aboutready, show me how it was sarcasm. And show me how your statements after support that contention.

Show it.

You can't.

Because you are a liar.

oh, hsf, you're right. i'm such a liar. i don't know how i live with myself.

bye bye you f'ng idiot. i reject everything you stand for in terms of values, and you are SOOO wrong about my earlier comment. but there is nothing saying that the city, of course, can't change the tax basis so that all owners own more.

have fun. printer.

So basically you have no explanation out of your lies.

you're a veritable parody of yourself, no? i guess you can't read. or at least not well. maybe you just lack analytical skills. how do you succeed without them? maybe you sell financial products to the unsuspecting? that would seem apt.

So because you can't explain your way out of your lies, you now decide you know what I do for a living and repudiate it, as if your husband, a corporate contract lawyer, isn't some sort of scumbag himself. Who does he represent.

But I'm happy to move beyond your family life if you just admit you are a complete liar.

Not that you are remotely close to what I do for a living, but I guess it is easy to look down on what other people do for a living when you are a kept woman doing nothing for a living.

Explain your lies.

hsf, tired, tired, tired, argument. i don't think that anyone who has read me here over the years agrees with your "lies" position. (maybe licc but he's just rabid).

it was clearly sarcasm, but i guess you didn't read much of Swift, Dickens, Thackeray and the like, so maybe you don't get it.

You keep trying to move on, but you won't address your lies. Typical pathological tactic.

btw, i don't give a rat's ass what you think. but you do so amuse me.

PS - You read Swift, Dickens and Thackeray. Where in those books did you read about "irregardless"?

Yale should have saved its dollars on someone smart and someone with ethics.

Yeah, you amuse me too.

Liar

you make me laugh. you really think you can judge a person by a one-word mistake? well, then, you are destined to fail, because you're not perfect nor do you present that well.

hsf, it's been lovely conversing with you, you nasty piece of shit, but i have better things to do with my time.

and i don't care at all if you think i lied. actually, given who you are, i would be happy to have everything i do be antithetical to what you believe.

No, I judge you finally based on your lie.

i judge you based on your boorishness. fail. goodbye.

I'm boorish.

You are a liar.

AR - "i think the tax abatements for new development condos ought to be eliminated, preferably retroactively."

Couldn't agree more - what a waste these abatements are -all it does is make the land more valuable. Eliminating these won't stop building it will just make land less valuable.

Yeah Jazzman, how do you explain it retroactively?

Oh, and by the way, don't be sure you agree with aboutready. Depending on the circumstances, she supports that statement or she doesn't. You never really know with a liar.

I read "retroactively" to mean it would apply to past projects but going forward. Government does this all the time, they raise tax rates, increase assessments, etc.

"I did and it doesn't.

Rent stabilization mostly benefits Manhattanites."

Really? Of the approximately 1 million RS apartments in NYC how many are in Manhattan and how many are in the other 4 boroughs?

Well, according to aboutready, its ok for the government to make changes for apartment owners, but not if it impacts tenants.

"i think the tax abatements for new development condos ought to be eliminated, preferably retroactively. i don't see why the city's tax collections should be so diminished to support wealthy homeowners, and to support a housing program that has been both controversial and not very successful, creating only one affordable unit for every two eliminated."

vs
"aaflights, the law is the law. a landlord receives benefits under certain circumstances. one of the conditions in this case is that the apartments affected must remain rent stabilized. prior to the luxury decontrol laws rent stabilized apartments, depending on the program, went to whoever was lucky enough to get them, and wasn't generally income restricted."
and
"the law's a bitch when you break it and get caught."

and then
"my retroactive comment was meant as sarcasm. but i guess you're not smart enough to realize that, even though you seem to have followed my comments rather carefully."

vs

"you do realize that next year we are facing an enormous tax shortage here? and you think it's appropriate public policy to give huge tax breaks to people buying very expensive condos?"
and
"like anyone buying an apartment for more than a million would need a tax abatement."

hfs - you might be wright - but you're approach is so over the top as to negate anything you might say. I can't hear what you're saying because you're screaming in my ear.
I'm familiar with the discussion from which you posted the previous quote of AR's distain for the J51 and the un-regulating of housing units - it was my thread - she and I were probably back and forth on the topic 100 posts each - we couldn't disagree more on the ruling - comments got sharp at points but never crossed the line - ever. You've crossed the line. This is not Curbed 2008. This is not Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann - I don't say things to encourage ratings - I debate, encourage, discourage, applaud, inform, learn - personal attacks won't get us anywhere. I encourage you to do the same.
PS - I'm not a frequent writer/reader of this thread but it seems AR is a stay at home mom and if you think that's means she isn't contributing to society then I invite you to speak with my wife about the importance of motherhood.

Jazzman, let me boil down my point into four words.

aboutready is a liar.

30yrs - "Really? Of the approximately 1 million RS apartments in NYC how many are in Manhattan and how many are in the other 4 boroughs?"
I think the point here is that just because you have a stabilized apartment doesn't mean you benefit from it. Certainly there are people paying $1,000 for a one bedroom in the Bronx and it's rent stabilized but sans rent stabilization the place would rent for $600 in it's current condition.
The majority of people with life changing benefits from stabilization mostly live in Manhattan and many don't need the help.

I'd say liar is harsh but perhaps acceptable - not sure such harsh language was needed over her apparent double standard -but certainly calling her out on it and making her express her opinion should be encouraged - but the "whore" word is just too much.
And if you really want to elicit a real response to your concern, calling her a liar won't help spur intellectual debate.

You can't have an "intellectual debate" with a liar.

"The majority of people with life changing benefits from stabilization mostly live in Manhattan and many don't need the help."

Again, another statement of dogma, rather than fact. Where are you coming up with this other than you "feel" that things are this way? In addition, your statement is a bit of an oxymoron.

"You can't have an "intellectual debate" with a liar."
You also can't have it with someone who just called you a whore.

30years,

You are right, there are more rent stabilized units in the boroughs. But the benefit is much much less per unit. I've seen a study where the benefit of rent stabilization in the boroughs was minor, as many units there rent at or near free market rents. I don't have it handy, but I recall something like a 5-10% lower rent over freemarket in the boroughs, but much higher, say 50%, in Manhattan. Don't hold me to those exact numbers. If I have time I'll try to dig up the report.

Right. But I had no interest in a debate with aboutready. She showed herself with her incongruous positions before I called her a whore. And after I called her a whore I caught her in her lies (which she conveniently calls sarcasm before she reverts to her original statements)

Your "back and forth on the topic 100 posts each" didn't get you very far very fast.

But while you say I "crossed the line," only now do you say "liar is harsh but perhaps acceptable".

What is your reluctance? Why are you hedging?

Aboutready tramples all over you because she is willing and eager to play dirty and you are only willing to dip your toes and still you fail to stand up for your point of view unless you have cover.

30yrs -
"Again, another statement of dogma, rather than fact. Where are you coming up with this other than you "feel" that things are this way? In addition, your statement is a bit of an oxymoron."
Agree to your point of the hint of an oxymoron - my point there is that some have such cheap housing that they don't need to work as hard - without the aid of a stabilized place they would be just fine they would just have to work more and spend less - thus they benefit from stabilization but really don't need the government's assistance.

To your dogma point - I see rent rolls every day - I'm very familiar with what people pay in rent throughout the city. It's amazing how many disgusting buildings in the Bronx have average rents of $900/unit/month with the high rent for the building at $1,300 and the low rent at about $700. Then you see buildings in Harlem where sometimes the average rents are $800/unit/month (less than the Bronx), but there the low rent is $89 and the high rent is $2,500. I just think the number of people who are benefitting from RS in the Bronx is small and those who are are over 65. So if we were to eliminate RS most of them wouldn't pay a cent more in rent as it would be picked up by the taxpayers.

"But while you say I "crossed the line," only now do you say "liar is harsh but perhaps acceptable".

What is your reluctance? Why are you hedging?"

Don't think I'm hedging - my distain for your comments revolve around the word "whore" and that you claim a stay at home mom isn't contributing to society. I'm reluctant to say the word "liar" crosses over the line because I wouldn't use it. I feel it would shut off sound debate after it's used - but other readers may not take such offense at the word so they may still engage in reasonable debate after being called a liar. So it's just a risky word to use.

"Aboutready tramples all over you because she is willing and eager to play dirty"
I simply disagree - I don't think she trampled me at all - I think our debate over Sty Town was beneficial for me as it helped me solidify my position on the ruling. I need not have any cover -

Believe me, you've been trampled by aboutready.

But it is hard to make a choice between a liar and someone with no backbone.

I think I'll take the foxhole alone.

hfs - with your misunderstanding of the vital role of mothers in a society you can have your foxhole all to yourself -

Here's the best summary of aboutready and Jazzman posted on the Stuytown thread by maly:

"I don't know what is more ridiculous: AR who thinks that a couple who make over 175k deserve a RS apartment, or Jazzman who feels sorry for himself because being a landlord is not as profitable as it used to be.
Only in New York, kids."

ps - mothers in my family manage more than 1 child (who by the way isn't an infant) and have other responsibilities too (other than daily gym for 2 hours, and 3 week straight vacations)

"ps - mothers in my family manage more than 1 child (who by the way isn't an infant) and have other responsibilities too (other than daily gym for 2 hours, and 3 week straight vacations)"
So what's your point - moms shouldn't go the gym and have vacation? That the only thing AR does in a day is take care of her kid, post on Streeteasy, go to the gym and the rest of the day she fills staring into space? Do you really feel that her accomplishments in life have been below average? That she's a net negative for society. I think you're inferring things you don't even believe yourself.

"Jazzman who feels sorry for himself because being a landlord is not as profitable as it used to be. " And I'll say it again "It's not that's it's less profitable it's that it's unprofitable and the laws require that rent increases be enough to cover the increases in our real expenses." And to quote Riversider "No, I think the landlord was expressing frustration, so 1/2 agree."

hfs -ps - with a son who calls a married woman a whore online - perhaps your mother should have concentrated more on the child rearing and less on all of these other pursuits you seem to find more valuable.
I'm just saying.

Do you really feel that her accomplishments in life have been below average? That she's a net negative for society. I think you're inferring things you don't even believe yourself.

Well, it's evident she is a liar, so yes, if all she does is manage one kid, go to the gym, have no use for her Yale education paid by others, and then lie, yes, that's a net negative for society.

As for you ... doesn't matter. No backbone, no conviction, nothing

Jazzman and modern:

One thing you have to realize is what is TRULY important is not absolute numbers: of COURSE those are always going to be higher in Manhattan. But the real EFFECT of RS is felt the most by people on the margin, both on the LL side and the tenant side: Jazzman, as you point out, many RS tenants in Manhattan don't need it; well in the buroughs things are quite different: what you've got A LOT MORE OF is buildings where the LL is holding on by the skin of his teeth because the RS rents don't cover the building's expenses, and tenant where even at the RS rents are paying a significantly higher percentage of their gross income (NWT:"http://furmancenter.org/ also has useful stuff. 30yrs had linked to something there on the extent of rent poverty: the huge proportion of renters paying more than 30% of their gross.") and are ALSO hanging on by the skin of their teeth. In addition, if the higher paying tenants in Manhattan lose their RS privileges, many will still be able to afford an apartment - for those is the outer boroughs, for many it means homelessness.

Now you can give anecdotal evidence of buildings in the Bronx vs Harlem; I can tell you that there are buildings all over Brooklyn which have large percentages of their tenants getting preferential (i.e. below market) rents due to RS. one thing which we forget about being so Manhattan centric is that we think any apartment which becomes vacant gets decontrolled because it's worth it to put in whatever amount of reno it takes to get the base rent over $2,000. This isn't the case in Brooklyn and the Bronx, so you still see PLENTY of RS units which have been turned over and with the vacancy increase are no where near market.

Think about your statement:"It's amazing how many disgusting buildings in the Bronx have average rents of $900/unit/month with the high rent for the building at $1,300 and the low rent at about $700." It means there are TONS of people paying $700 where market is $1,000 to $1,300. We're used to dealing with much bigger numbers, so we tend to belittle these kinds of differences. But When you are making $28,000 a year (like a whole lot of people living in those crappy areas in those run down buildings are) $300 a month after taxes is THE WORLD.

30yrs, i don't disagree with your above statement, except that i think there are more RS tenants in Manhattan for whom the difference matters than we would like to admit. jazzman, i realize i'm not one of them.

i don't have a double standard in the slightest. i do not need RS, nor did i expect it. my comments on the other thread, which i must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that i solidified your position, but i had had enough of the thread and have no wish to revisit the issues so i must concede defeat if only through unwillingness to continue to fight, were meant on behalf of those for whom the difference does matter.

btw, the husband reminds me that the action here involves joint and several liability. metlife is a defendant.

thanks, though, for the support for mothers. i can only assume hsf has no children. perhaps that's best.

oh, and btw, what do you think about new yorkers subsidizing the taxes of buyers of new development units? it too was for a public policy purpose. and often it is quite a bit more than $1000 a month per unit.

I was wondering how this thread got to 82 comments overnight.

Jazz, I think your low end 1 bedroom in the Bronx at $400/m below market example supports my 1K/month guess for the NYC average, considering that Manhattan apartments below Harlem probably start at $1K/month discounted and go up much higher.

Anyway, if RS only supports Manhattanites, why not just get rid of it? No one would be homeless, they would just have to move across the river where they could afford market rents in the other boroughs.

chasingwamus, if you got rid of RS overnight, you'd seriously harm many landlords. it needs to be phased out.

our apartment is indeed about $1000 more than it would be RS, but almost all of the one bedrooms here that are market rate will be the same if returned to RS.

i think it's kind of funny. for years i got scorn for living in a "slum" and a "project" which was highly "undesirable." and there was some truth to the latter adjective. and i still get the scorn now, on this very board. very few people wanted to live here, which is why i was able to rent a renovated 2/2 for $2750 in 2004. now, somehow, it's become an enclave of conniving millionaires out to game the system. are there people here with money in RS apartments? yes, of course there are. is this a bastion of wealth? absolutely not. most of the long-term RS residents who are getting the truly good deals are 80ish years old and many of them are on fixed incomes. people continued to live here because of the community, there certainly was/is no prestige to residing in PCV/ST.

jazzman, i have a suggestion. come and spend a saturday here. go to the oval. spend some time in one of the playgrounds (PCV's is nice, and has benches outside that are very pleasant to sit at and people watch). obviously you can't always judge a book by its cover, but i would be surprised if anyone who spent any time here at all would walk away thinking that this is anything other than a collection of mostly middle-class people. huge numbers of them bordering on ancient, with an increasingly large college presence. i'm an anomoly here. but of course it is always better press to make sweeping generalizations, however impossible thet are to prove with facts.

aboutready, please explain your lies.

stop.

go back into your hole.

you've beaten this to death and beyond.

AR - "oh, and btw, what do you think about new yorkers subsidizing the taxes of buyers of new development units" Per my above comments I think the subsidies to buyers are nothing more than a gift to land owners - take away the subsidy and units still sell for the same price but the land that is sold to the developer must sell for less. Subsidies to anyone but the very poor should be abolished (this includes MY Yankees, Goldman Sachs (to prevent them from leaving the city -like that was going to happen) etc.

chasingworms and 30yrs - " market example supports my 1K/month guess for the NYC average" I look at rent rolls every day - I know what people pay. It's my business to know - I own buildings in the Bronx with as many as 50 units. Rents in the Bronx are not news to me. Certainly there are people who are saving $200/month on housing there right now and for them $200/month represents nearly 4 days of work for them. If we got rid of RS overnight then market rates would fall in the Bronx. There is no question about it. They will fall in line with people's incomes (see the housing market). Most of the people with $500/rents in the Bronx are elderly -their rents would go up but the increase would be paid for by us. I believe Modern has alluded to a report that shows the actual benefit of RS to most people in the city. Most save less than 10% -there is no way the average savings is anywhere near $1,000/month. So to my original post. If the system is more expensive to run than the savings shouldn't we stop paying for all of the oversight agencies and just give people vouchers with the money instead?

When I was poor I rented a room or lived with my parents. Poor people don't have the luxury to have their own place. They must pool resources (such is true all over the world). The destabilization of housing in the Bronx is not needed, but if it were to happen thousands would leave NY. They would realize that for $700/month (what they are currently paying) they can have a much nicer apartment and a car in Florida (right now you can actually buy a condo for less than $500/month). Many apartments would become vacant and landlords would be forced to improve their properties. The slumlords would all of a sudden have vacant buildings and get their just desserts.

AR - I've been to Sty Town many many times. For 11 years a friend of mine illegal sublet a place there - he was one of the ones kicked out (and rightfully so) by TS. My wife and I were seriously considering a move there about 6 months after TS bought it. I was shocked by the price increases. As you know, when MetLife owned it it was a place where you could rent a market rate apartment at below market prices. I understand that you think most people there are middle class but by NY standards only. By the world's standards they are rich. If someone makes 3x the median income then aren't they rich? The place wasn't built for middle income people. MetLife just chose to run it that way. Every bidder on the property had other plans -TS was not alone in seeing upside in market rate rents too.

Hey Jazzman, good luck having another 100 back and forth posts with someone you agree is a liar. Because you are a nice guy (aka no backbone).

PS - to get an idea of what people actually pay in rent go to Massey Knakals website. There are plenty of setups there that you can see without registering. Check out some stabilized building in Manhattan and then the Bronx. You'll see that in the Bronx the majority of those with stabilized units pay a couple hundred bucks below currently market levels. Again my belief is that if you eliminate RS then rental rates will fall in the Bronx. Many people will move out of the state (or country) and many people just won't be able to afford a rent increase so they'll move in with family etc. The vacancy rate would shoot up and then prices will fall. The shake up would be unnecessary though so keeping the system (with some tweaks) is best.

hfs - I've always called myself (privately until now) the "nice guy who won't finish last." So far I'm doing pretty well for myself. Thanks for noticing that I'm nice.

Keep it up, keep digging yourself deeper into irrelevance. You accuse me of shouting. Don't you know no one reads long paragraphs?

Try calling her for what she is. Liar
And calling her argument for what it is. Disingenuous and incongruous.

why don't you tell us some of your many other names here?

columbiacounty, I thought you hate liars. Or is aboutready your kind of liar?

Show me, oh honest one, how aboutready was not lying. Show me how her statement could have been interpreted as sarcastic?

So how bout them Yankees?

hfscomm1, are you going to contribute anything other than "liar" to this discussion board? We had a poster a few weeks ago who spent his time posting "liar" at another poster nonstop, I got tired of scrolling through the posts and used ignore on him/her. I will do the same with you if you have the same intention.

By the way Jazzman, nice guy who won't finish last... Except did I read wrong, you can't even evict a non-paying tenant from your buildings. And housing court judges are throwing out your agreements calling them unfair. And you've complained that your cost increases exceed your rent increases. Maybe you just haven't reached the finish line?

Who was that person modern, was the columbiacounty who has chased around NYCMatt and Riversider and others? The person who doesn't like liars, unless those liars are his friends?

jazzman, the week after TS closed they were told by the managing agent that there was zero possibility of achieving their destabilization goals. the managing agent was subsequently fired. it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this was one of the worst f'ng deals of all time. and we've had the discussion of what constitutes middle class many a time on this board.

btw, i find you to be quite civil as well. i doubt we'd disagree too greatly in principal on RS (i just really freakin' hate TS, and your friend may have been the just recipient of an eviction notice, but i can tell you many here weren't), and we do agree that one of the greatest root causes of housing problems in the city is under-building. i just find it highly ironic that so many people can argue, at the same time no less, that people have been stupidly buying properties when they should rent and that people should be treated as lepers if they do indeed rent. in the interest of public policy and urban planning many things may be enacted that are not necessarily palatable to certain groups. this country has followed a home ownership for as many as possible philosophy for some time now, and it hasn't exactly worked so well.

btw, how and why did PCV/ST become subject to RS laws in the first place? does anyone know what caused the complex to enter the program? 30yrs?

aboutready, you should move on to these topics only after you explain your lies.

modern, ignore is a useful tool. speaking of tools...