monchie's
flame war
monchie's flame war started when he responded positively to the following post:
From: g.spritzer@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: How to ensure rent controls.....
Date: 26 Apr 1997 04:14:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Cyrus: If rent stabilization is ended or phased out, the
following things will happen:
1) Long-term tenants of rent-stabilized apartments in upscale
neighborhoods with below market rents will see their rents
increase (in some cases significantly).
2) Tenants who live in apartments that are NOT rent stabilized
will see their rents decrease significantly!
3) Tenants who live in poor neighborhoods will see little change
in their rent, since rent stabilized apartments
in these neighborhoods are already at or above market levels.
4) Tenants who live in rent-stabilized studios or one bedrooms
that have "turned over" frequently will see little or no change
in their rents and may even see a decrease! Cyrus, I think you
fall in this category if you are paying over $1400 for a one
bedroom rent stabilized apartment.
The tenant activists from the Upper East Side/West Side (who fall
into Category 1 above) have done a good job of convincing the
media that a majority of tenants will see a rent increase if
rent stabilization is phased out. Actually the reverse is true!
Most tenants will see decreases in their rent, since there are
currently about 2 million rental units that are not under rent control
or rent stabilization.
and here's monchie's friendly response:
From: monchum@interport.net (monchie of nyc)
Subject: Re: How to ensure rent controls.....
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 17:51:23 GMT
Organization: Interport Communications Corp.
In article <5jrvel$iqf@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, g.spritzer@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Cyrus: If rent stabilization is ended or phased out, the
>following things will happen:
>1) Long-term tenants of rent-stabilized apartments in upscale
>neighborhoods with below market rents will see their rents
>increase (in some cases significantly).
This will most likely happen, and imo would be a positive development.
>2) Tenants who live in apartments that are NOT rent stabilized
>will see their rents decrease significantly!
I disagree with this. I suspect that these rents may stay at much the same
rate for several years though.
>3) Tenants who live in poor neighborhoods will see little change
>in their rent, since rent stabilized apartments
>in these neighborhoods are already at or above market levels.
Very true. And you could also extend this to middle-class areas in the outer
boroughs and upper Manhattan. Here in Inwood in Upper Manhattan, one bedrooms
are currently going for about $700-750 and 2 bedrooms for $850-900, and I
don't see that changing much with decontrol. Again, though, with decontrol,
these rates may not change significantly for several years.
>4) Tenants who live in rent-stabilized studios or one bedrooms
> that have "turned over" frequently will see little or no change
>in their rents and may even see a decrease! Cyrus, I think you
>fall in this category if you are paying over $1400 for a one
>bedroom rent stabilized apartment.
I agree, and again I think that these rents would probably not rise all that
much for several years.
>The tenant activists from the Upper East Side/West Side (who fall
>into Category 1 above) have done a good job of convincing the
>media that a majority of tenants will see a rent increase if
>rent stabilization is phased out. Actually the reverse is true!
>Most tenants will see decreases in their rent, since there are
>currently about 2 million rental units that are not under rent control
>or rent stabilization.
I don't think we're going to see decreases if rent controls are abolished, but
I do believe that the higher rates would see very little change. Perhaps there
might be a decrease after several years of decontrol as all the formerly very
cheap, below-market apartments came on the market.
Incidentally, with regard to the "activists," I just came across some
interesting figures from the 1990 census about some of the more desirable
Manhattan neighborhoods, courtesy of Street Atlas 4.0:
Demographics for ZIP 10024 (roughly the Upper West Side in the 80s)
Median Rent $637
Owner Occupied Housing 24%
Renter Occupied Housing 68%
Demographics for ZIP 10023 (roughly the Upper West Side, 60s & 70s)
Median Rent $676
Owner Occupied Housing 25%
Renter Occupied Housing 64%
Demographics for ZIP 10014 (West Village)
Median Rent $653
Owner Occupied Housing 17%
Renter Occupied Housing 76%
Demographics for ZIP 10011 (Chelsea)
Median Rent $600
Owner Occupied Housing 24%
Renter Occupied Housing 69%
The median rents for the East Side were somewhat higher, in the $750-900
range.
Remember that median rent means that half of the rents were above this figure
and half were below. That means that in 1990, half of the rents on the Upper
West Side were *******below******** $637/month in 10024 and
**********below********** $676 in 10023 (and of course half were above as
well). This includes all apartments, from studios to 3 bedrooms and up.
Now try finding an apartment on the Upper West Side for less than $637 or
$676.
What this obviously means is that there are an awful lot of people hanging on
to lower rent apartments in these zip codes, since you can't even touch a
1-bedroom for less than $1200/month.
and now here comes monchie's not-so-friendly flamer:
From: SteveManes@REMOVEmagpie.com
Subject: Re: How to ensure rent controls.....
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 02:19:49 GMT
Organization: NYC Motorcyclists
monchie of nyc (monchum@interport.net) wrote:
: >3) Tenants who live in poor neighborhoods will see little change
: >in their rent, since rent stabilized apartments
: >in these neighborhoods are already at or above market levels.
: Very true. And you could also extend this to middle-class areas in the outer
: boroughs and upper Manhattan.
It's not true. It may be true in those poor neighborhoods which
_remain_ poor neighborhoods but those which are targeted by gentrification
will see runaway rent increases far beyond the ability of the residents
to pay. Without controls, you would see wholesale evictions of
low-income tenants in borderline neighborhoods, starting in the
East Village and the lowest east side.
: Now try finding an apartment on the Upper West Side for less than $637 or
: $676.
You can't. $650/mo is exactly what someone earning a NYC median
income of $32k _should_ be paying for rent. It's one-third their
take-home income. What's your point... to throw middle-income wage
earners out of Manhattan?
-----------------------[ http://www.magpie.com ]-----------=o&>o---------
Steve Manes | Int'l Bass Players | for info, email
manes@magpie.com | NYC Motorcyclists | server@magpie.com with
94 Harley-Davidson FLHR | Triumph MC Owners | the message text, "lists"
95 Triumph Super III | Motorcycle Safety |
97 Triumph T595 | | N'Yawk, N'Yawk
monchie's response to the flame:
From: monchum@interport.net (monchie of nyc)
Subject: Re: How to ensure rent controls.....
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 05:20:31 GMT
Organization: Interport Communications Corp.
In article <E9Bt52.27G@magpie.com>, SteveManes@REMOVEmagpie.com wrote:
>monchie of nyc (monchum@interport.net) wrote:
>: >3) Tenants who live in poor neighborhoods will see little change
>: >in their rent, since rent stabilized apartments
>: >in these neighborhoods are already at or above market levels.
>
>: Very true. And you could also extend this to middle-class areas in the outer
>: boroughs and upper Manhattan.
>
>It's not true. It may be true in those poor neighborhoods which
>_remain_ poor neighborhoods but those which are targeted by gentrification
>will see runaway rent increases far beyond the ability of the residents
>to pay. Without controls, you would see wholesale evictions of
>low-income tenants in borderline neighborhoods, starting in the
>East Village and the lowest east side.
First of all, in that paragraph, I wasn't referring to trendy or
soon-to-be-trendy neighborhoods like the East Village. I was referring
to untrendy (at least for the moment) middle class areas of Brooklyn, Queens,
the Bronx and Upper Manhattan. One of the major attractions of my
neighborhood, Inwood, is that the market rents are relatively affordable for
middle class people. I very much doubt that much would happen other than for
the below-market rents to rise closer to the market level, which is still
affordable by middle class standards. If there is a glut of such apartments
coming on the market, there may also be downward pressure on market prices.
As for the East Village, the major reason for the skyrocketing market rents is
a demand for housing in a trendy neighborhood where there is an artificial
shortage. And, IMO, the primary reason for this artificial shortage is the
hoarding of apartments by renters who are paying rents well below market rate.
Heck, if I had a $350/month rent-stabilized apartment in the East Village (or
the West Village, for that matter), I'd do whatever I could to hold onto it.
If I got a job on the West Coast, I'd sublet it for twice or three times that
price, and still know that if I ever got a job back in New York, I'd have a
cheap apartment to come back to. And if I had children, I'd make sure they'd
be able to "inherit" it when I pass away.
>: Now try finding an apartment on the Upper West Side for less than $637 or
>: $676.
>
>You can't. $650/mo is exactly what someone earning a NYC median
>income of $32k _should_ be paying for rent. It's one-third their
>take-home income. What's your point... to throw middle-income wage
>earners out of Manhattan?
No, I'm trying to make Manhattan more affordable for middle-income wage
earners.
Basically, the way rent control/stabilization works now is that people who
have moved in during the last 10-15 years are subsidizing those who moved in
before that.
The politicians need the votes of the renters to get elected, but they also
need the money of the landlords in order to run for office. So, over the past
50 years, whenever the landlords have called in their chips with the
politicians, the politicians respond not by allowing big rent increases on the
people who are currently tenants/voters, but by passing the brunt of the
increases onto the people who ****will be***** tenants/voters after the
election -- 1 year after, 2 years after, 10 years after.
One typical example of this approach is the grandfathering of rent control in
the early 70s when the switch to rent stabilization took place. The last
figure I saw -- this was about 3 years ago, 20 years after the supposed
switchover to rent stabilization -- was that 10% of tenants were still covered
by rent control, where the rents are based on World War 2 era prices. Another
example is allowing large vacancy increases, which are passed on only to new
tenants, not to people already living in an apartment. My first landlord in
New York City had his own game: He rented primarily to college students from
out of town, knowing that he'd get that vacancy increase every 2-3 years or
so.
After 50 years of this system, we have a situation where one tenant may be
paying $350/month for a 3 room apt. simply because they've lived there for 30
years or "inherited" it from their parents, while the person in the exact same
apartment upstairs is paying $1600/month just because they happened to move
into New York City in the 1990s.
If controls were removed, the artificial shortage caused by the hoarding of
apartments by renters (and, yes, by landlords as well) would ease, as would
the upward pressure on market rents. When it's no longer rational to hoard an
apartment, people aren't going to do it. And if there is suddenly a glut of
high-priced, formerly below-market-rate apartments on the market, which could
very well happen if controls were removed, then there would be downward
pressure on prices. I predict that if rent controls were removed today, in
5-10 years the market rate for simple 3 room apartments, nothing fancy, on the
Upper West Side would be $700-800 (in 1997 dollars), roughly equivalent to
what the actual median is today. This is a very affordable rent by middle
class standards.
By the way, I am not a landlord, nor do I have any relatives who are
landlords. I am a tenant in a rent-stabilized apartment. But I lived part of
my adult life in a big city which did not have rent controls (Philadelphia),
and I can assure you that the housing market is far more rational and
affordable than New York City.
monchie's flamer's response:
From: SteveManes@REMOVEmagpie.com
Subject: Re: How to ensure rent controls.....
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:17:48 GMT
Organization: NYC Motorcyclists
monchie of nyc (monchum@interport.net) wrote:
: First of all, in that paragraph, I wasn't referring to trendy or
: soon-to-be-trendy neighborhoods like the East Village. I was referring
: to untrendy (at least for the moment) middle class areas of Brooklyn, Queens,
: the Bronx and Upper Manhattan.
Ten years ago, everything south of 14th Street and east of 1st
Avenue was decidedly untrendy. Even five years ago, Avenue A was funky
enough to deter gentrification. Today, one-bedrooms on Avenue B can
cost up to $1200. There are two points: one, even with rent controls
the lower east side has been turned on its head with "market value"
speculation and, two, without rent control it will be a green light
to accelerate evictions of families and lower-income residents who
are least capable of paying the doubled and tripled rents which is
exactly what would happen in the East Village.
: As for the East Village, the major reason for the skyrocketing market rents is
: a demand for housing in a trendy neighborhood where there is an artificial
: shortage. And, IMO, the primary reason for this artificial shortage is the
: hoarding of apartments by renters who are paying rents well below market rate.
That's nonsense. Anyone whose income situation forced them to rent
an apartment in Alphabet City five years ago is almost certainly
not in a financial situation to "hoard apartments". Hoarding
apartments is what speculators have done to scores of buildings on
the LES, waiting for gentrification to push up rents.
: Basically, the way rent control/stabilization works now is that people who
: have moved in during the last 10-15 years are subsidizing those who moved in
: before that.
What "subsidization" would this be? Landlords are making big money in
this town. If they weren't, we wouldn't be seeing sky-high purchase
prices for rundown buildings in less desirable neighborhoods even outside
Manhattan. The fact is that with stabilization landlords are
earning guaranteed rent increases in excess of CPI and in excess of
support costs, which means not only a guaranteed profit for
landlords but a guaranteed _increase_ in profits every year.
: One typical example of this approach is the grandfathering of rent control in
: the early 70s when the switch to rent stabilization took place. The last
: figure I saw -- this was about 3 years ago, 20 years after the supposed
: switchover to rent stabilization -- was that 10% of tenants were still covered
: by rent control, where the rents are based on World War 2 era prices.
Actually, as of 1991 it was 6.4%, which means it's probably less than
5% now. This trivial number as a percentage of the whole NYC rental
market is an important one remember when someone invokes an anecdote
about rent _control_ abuse to justify elimination of rent _stabilization_,
which aren't the same.
: If controls were removed, the artificial shortage caused by the hoarding of
: apartments by renters (and, yes, by landlords as well) would ease
Unfortunately, the facts speak otherwise. Rent controls have been
passed and revoked several times in this century and at NO time did
abolition of controls result in an increase of apartment stock.
As for "hoarding", there are plenty of laws already on the books
making it quite easy for landlords to take possession of any
apartment being illegally subletted by a tenant, including
inspection rights and even summonses dragging suspicious tenants
into court to substantiate their primary residence. I know because
this was one of the bullshit legal moves a landlord used against me
to harrass me into leaving my apartment. In my 25 years in NYC, I've
seen several of these illicit sublet arrangements but I've never seen
one of them survive when the landlord made an effort to monitor what
was going on in his building.
: I am a tenant in a rent-stabilized apartment. But I lived part of
: my adult life in a big city which did not have rent controls (Philadelphia),
: and I can assure you that the housing market is far more rational and
: affordable than New York City.
Suffice to say, Philadelphia isn't and never has been New York City.
monchie defends philadelphia's honor:
From: monchum@interport.net (monchie of nyc)
Subject: Re: How to ensure rent controls.....
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 05:40:55 GMT
Organization: Interport Communications Corp.
In article <E9D49o.GG2@magpie.com>, SteveManes@REMOVEmagpie.com wrote:
>monchie of nyc (monchum@interport.net) wrote:
>: First of all, in that paragraph, I wasn't referring to trendy or
>: soon-to-be-trendy neighborhoods like the East Village. I was referring
>: to untrendy (at least for the moment) middle class areas of Brooklyn,
> Queens,
>: the Bronx and Upper Manhattan.
>
>Ten years ago, everything south of 14th Street and east of 1st
>Avenue was decidedly untrendy. Even five years ago, Avenue A was funky
>enough to deter gentrification. Today, one-bedrooms on Avenue B can
>cost up to $1200. There are two points: one, even with rent controls
>the lower east side has been turned on its head with "market value"
>speculation and, two, without rent control it will be a green light
>to accelerate evictions of families and lower-income residents who
>are least capable of paying the doubled and tripled rents which is
>exactly what would happen in the East Village.
Again, you ignore my point: I was referring to the untrendy middle class areas
of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Upper Manhattan. And if people are
incapable of paying rents in an area because it's become trendy, they can move
to an untrendy neighborhood where rents are affordable. When I moved to NYC in
1985, I couldn't afford the market-rate rents in the trendy areas -- West
Village, Upper West Side, even the East Village -- so I moved into definitely
untrendy Upper Manhattan.
>: As for the East Village, the major reason for the skyrocketing market rents
> is
>: a demand for housing in a trendy neighborhood where there is an artificial
>: shortage. And, IMO, the primary reason for this artificial shortage is the
>: hoarding of apartments by renters who are paying rents well below market
> rate.
>
>That's nonsense. Anyone whose income situation forced them to rent
>an apartment in Alphabet City five years ago is almost certainly
>not in a financial situation to "hoard apartments". Hoarding
>apartments is what speculators have done to scores of buildings on
>the LES, waiting for gentrification to push up rents.
Of course landlords have hoarded apartments -- but so have tenants. That's
very obvious from the median rent figures I posted for the Upper West Side and
the West Village. How can the median rents for zip codes 10024, 10023, and
10014 be, respectively, $676, $637, and $653 (1990 census figures) without
massive hoarding by tenants? Those figures mean that in 1990, *****half******
of the apartments on the Upper West Side and the West Village had rents less
than $676, $637, and $653, respectively.
Also, according to the 1996 New York City Housing and Vacancy Surveys, the
median contract rent (monthly rent charges, not including utilities) for New
York City as a whole is $593/month. That means that half of all rents in New
York City -- rent-controlled, rent-stabilized, and unregulated -- are below
$593/month. (Source: New York City Rent Guidelines Board Web Page,
http://www.nycrgb.com/Welcome.html)
In Alphabet City, I'm sure landlords have hoarded apartments. People don't buy
buildings on the Lower East Side expecting to make money from the rents --
they expect to make money from conversions into luxury buildings, and the best
way to convert them is to keep the apartments empty when tenants move out.
Again, this is another side effect of rent control, since there is potentially
more money to be made with a luxury rental or coop conversion than there is
owning a building with lots of below market rate apartments.
>: Basically, the way rent control/stabilization works now is that people who
>: have moved in during the last 10-15 years are subsidizing those who moved in
>: before that.
>
>What "subsidization" would this be? Landlords are making big money in
>this town. If they weren't, we wouldn't be seeing sky-high purchase
>prices for rundown buildings in less desirable neighborhoods even outside
>Manhattan. The fact is that with stabilization landlords are
>earning guaranteed rent increases in excess of CPI and in excess of
>support costs, which means not only a guaranteed profit for
>landlords but a guaranteed _increase_ in profits every year.
The subsidization works like this: as I explained, landlords ***have*** gotten
big rent increases over the years, and during the past few years, the
increases have been higher than inflation -- but because politicians are loath
to allow really big increases on current tenant/voters, it's been much more
politically expedient to have ****future**** tenants/voters bear much of the
brunt of the increases. For example, only new tenants have to pay vacancy
increases, which are placed on top of the regular yearly increases; that means
that the new tenant is paying an even heftier increase over the inflation
rate. And if you have a landlord who knows how to achieve a high turnover in
the building (as my former landlord did, by renting primarily to out-of-town
college students), he can get those vacancy increases on a particular
apartment every few years.
After 50 years of these kinds of shenanigans by landlords, tenants, and
politicians, you have the very common New York situation where one tenant may
be paying $300/month while the person upstairs with the same exact apartment
is paying $1200/month. Both apartments should probably be renting for
$750/month, but right now the $1200/month tenant is subsidizing the rent of
the $300/month renter.
Remember, it does take money to maintain a building, pay taxes, etc., so the
$1200/month renter is paying a much bigger share of those costs than the
$300/month renter, even though both have the same exact apartment.
>: One typical example of this approach is the grandfathering of rent control in
>
>: the early 70s when the switch to rent stabilization took place. The last
>: figure I saw -- this was about 3 years ago, 20 years after the supposed
>: switchover to rent stabilization -- was that 10% of tenants were still
> covered
>: by rent control, where the rents are based on World War 2 era prices.
>
>Actually, as of 1991 it was 6.4%, which means it's probably less than
>5% now. This trivial number as a percentage of the whole NYC rental
>market is an important one remember when someone invokes an anecdote
>about rent _control_ abuse to justify elimination of rent _stabilization_,
>which aren't the same.
The 10% figure was given to me 3-4 years ago by a tenant activist when I
questioned him about how many people were still living under rent control. I
have not been able to find a current figure on the web.
>: If controls were removed, the artificial shortage caused by the hoarding of
>: apartments by renters (and, yes, by landlords as well) would ease
>
>Unfortunately, the facts speak otherwise. Rent controls have been
>passed and revoked several times in this century and at NO time did
>abolition of controls result in an increase of apartment stock.
>
>As for "hoarding", there are plenty of laws already on the books
>making it quite easy for landlords to take possession of any
>apartment being illegally subletted by a tenant, including
>inspection rights and even summonses dragging suspicious tenants
>into court to substantiate their primary residence. I know because
>this was one of the bullshit legal moves a landlord used against me
>to harrass me into leaving my apartment. In my 25 years in NYC, I've
>seen several of these illicit sublet arrangements but I've never seen
>one of them survive when the landlord made an effort to monitor what
>was going on in his building.
As far as previous attempts at rent control, I'm only familiar with the
current program, which was conceived in the World War 2 era and then modified
with rent stabilization in the early 70s. If you have some historical
background, I'll be glad to take a look at it.
I saw in one of the papers the other day that a landlord claimed that it cost
$5000 to get an illegal tenant evicted. Now, I take that figure with a grain
of salt since it came from a landlord, but I would suspect that it's an
expensive process.
>: I am a tenant in a rent-stabilized apartment. But I lived part of
>: my adult life in a big city which did not have rent controls (Philadelphia),
>: and I can assure you that the housing market is far more rational and
>: affordable than New York City.
>
>Suffice to say, Philadelphia isn't and never has been New York City.
The biggest difference between New York and Philadelphia is that Philadelphia
has no rent control.
For example, let's compare the 1990 median rents for zip codes 19103, 19102,
19107, and 19106 in Center City Philly to neighborhoods which are roughly
equivalent -- the Upper West Side (similar to 19103 and 19102) West Village
(similar to 19107), and Upper East Side (similar to 19106):
Demographics for ZIP 19103
Median Rent $575
Owner Occupied Housing 23%
Renter Occupied Housing 65%
Demographics for ZIP 19102
Median Rent $641
Owner Occupied Housing 15%
Renter Occupied Housing 67%
Demographics for ZIP 19107
Median Rent $475
Owner Occupied Housing 8%
Renter Occupied Housing 79%
Demographics for ZIP 19106
Median Rent $762
Owner Occupied Housing 31%
Renter Occupied Housing 54%
Now here are the figures for the comparable neigborhoods in New York, Upper
West Side (10024, 10023), West Village (10014), and Upper East Side (10028):
Demographics for ZIP 10024
Median Rent $637
Owner Occupied Housing 24%
Renter Occupied Housing 68%
Demographics for ZIP 10023
Median Rent $676
Owner Occupied Housing 25%
Renter Occupied Housing 64%
Demographics for ZIP 10014
Median Rent $653
Owner Occupied Housing 17%
Renter Occupied Housing 76%
Demographics for ZIP 10028
Median Rent $799
Owner Occupied Housing 28%
Renter Occupied Housing 62%
What is remarkable here is how similar the median rent figures for comparable
neighborhoods in the two cities are -- and how different the prices are if you
try to go out and rent a new apartment.
For example, I could go out tomorrow in Philly's 19103 (1990 median rent $575)
looking for a 3-room apartment for less than $750 and most likely find one in
a few hours. But if I went out in the Upper West Side's 10024 (1990 median
rent $637) for the same exact apartment at the same exact price, agents would
laugh in my face. And the median rent in 19103 is actually $67 ****less****
than in 10024.
What this means is that there are an awful lot of below-market-rate apartments
in the New York City zip codes, since, for example, a median rent of $575 in
10024 in 1990 means that half the rents there were ****below**** $575.
Yes, Philadelphia is not New York City -- both cities have their pros and
cons. But that is completely irrelevant in this discussion since the median
rents are so similar, yet the rents for a new apartment are so dissimilar. The
difference is, New York's rents have been completely distorted by rent
control, which rewards older tenants at the expense of newer tenants. In
Philly, on the other hand, your rent depends primarily on such factors as
location, view, number of rooms, etc., not on how long you've lived in the
apartment or whether you "inherited" the apartment from your parents.
monchie's flamer disses philly once more:
From: SteveManes@REMOVEmagpie.com
Subject: Re: How to ensure rent controls.....
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 06:50:02 GMT
Organization: NYC Motorcyclists
monchie of nyc (monchum@interport.net) wrote:
: Again, you ignore my point: I was referring to the untrendy middle class areas
: of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Upper Manhattan.
No, you're ignoring my point. With the possible exception of chronically
depressed neighborhoods like Harlem and Bed-Stuy, there's no such thing
as a neighborhood which is immune to gentrification. Even Red Hook is
experiencing trendy feelers.
: Also, according to the 1996 New York City Housing and Vacancy Surveys, the
: median contract rent (monthly rent charges, not including utilities) for New
: York City as a whole is $593/month. That means that half of all rents in New
: York City -- rent-controlled, rent-stabilized, and unregulated -- are below
: $593/month. (Source: New York City Rent Guidelines Board Web Page,
: http://www.nycrgb.com/Welcome.html)
I accept that, but you're telling only a tiny piece of the full
story. The last _national_ study was in 1993, and it lists the
median average for NYC at $551. Before you sputter and spit again,
that figure is also quite a bit above the national contract rent
average $502. In the 1993 national IAS study, only six US
continental cities had a higher median rent than NYC: San Jose
($810), San Francisco ($709), San Diego ($672), Los Angeles ($647),
Boston ($607) and Seattle ($567).
: The subsidization works like this: as I explained, landlords ***have*** gotten
: big rent increases over the years, and during the past few years, the
: increases have been higher than inflation -- but because politicians are loath
: to allow really big increases on current tenant/voters, it's been much more
: politically expedient to have ****future**** tenants/voters bear much of the
: brunt of the increases.
That's not "subsidization". That's called "preventing rent gouging".
: >Actually, as of 1991 it was 6.4%, which means it's probably less than
: >5% now.
: The 10% figure was given to me 3-4 years ago by a tenant activist when I
: questioned him about how many people were still living under rent control. I
: have not been able to find a current figure on the web.
See http://tenant.net
: As far as previous attempts at rent control, I'm only familiar with the
: current program, which was conceived in the World War 2 era and then modified
: with rent stabilization in the early 70s.
Repeating: rent control laws and rent stabilization laws are only
similar in that they are both legislative price controls. That's
where the similarity ends. They are not plug-compatible for the
source of convenient argument. You cannot use anecdotal abuses
under RC to scapegoat RS.
: I saw in one of the papers the other day that a landlord claimed that it cost
: $5000 to get an illegal tenant evicted. Now, I take that figure with a grain
: of salt since it came from a landlord, but I would suspect that it's an
: expensive process.
It's probably true. It cost me $15,000 to get an illegal tenant
evicted from a property I owned. The property fell into foreclosure
before I was successful. This was in Connecticut, not NYC.
: The biggest difference between New York and Philadelphia is that Philadelphia
: has no rent control.
Not on your life. Besides a big difference in respective population
sizes, economies, culture and transportation efficiency, the
biggest difference between NYC and Philly is that Philly isn't
historically concentrated on a 24 square-mile island, and developers
target their investment on less than half of it.
monchie dissects his flamer's dissing of philly:
From: monchum@interport.net (monchie of nyc)
Subject: Re: How to ensure rent controls.....
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 23:42:34 GMT
Organization: Interport Communications Corp.
In article <E9E0BF.z6@magpie.com>, SteveManes@REMOVEmagpie.com wrote:
>monchie of nyc (monchum@interport.net) wrote:
>: Again, you ignore my point: I was referring to the untrendy middle class
> areas
>: of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Upper Manhattan.
>
>No, you're ignoring my point. With the possible exception of chronically
>depressed neighborhoods like Harlem and Bed-Stuy, there's no such thing
>as a neighborhood which is immune to gentrification. Even Red Hook is
>experiencing trendy feelers.
You know, I wouldn't mind living in already gentrified areas like the Upper
West Side or the West Village, and according to the median rent figures, I as
a middle class person should be able to afford it. After all, as I might point
out to a rental agent, the 1990 median rents for 10024 and 10014 were,
respectively, $637 and $653; taking inflation into account, that means that
today the median rents for those zips should be somewhere around $750/month,
perhaps $800 at most. So how come I can't go out today and find an apartment
for $750/month in 10024 or 10014? After all, approximately half of the rental
units in those zips are priced at less than $750/month.
Maybe it's because a lot of people are living in below-market rent apartments
that they've had for decades or "inherited" from their parents.
>: Also, according to the 1996 New York City Housing and Vacancy Surveys, the
>: median contract rent (monthly rent charges, not including utilities) for New
>: York City as a whole is $593/month. That means that half of all rents in New
>: York City -- rent-controlled, rent-stabilized, and unregulated -- are below
>: $593/month. (Source: New York City Rent Guidelines Board Web Page,
>: http://www.nycrgb.com/Welcome.html)
>
>I accept that, but you're telling only a tiny piece of the full
>story. The last _national_ study was in 1993, and it lists the
>median average for NYC at $551. Before you sputter and spit again,
>that figure is also quite a bit above the national contract rent
>average $502. In the 1993 national IAS study, only six US
>continental cities had a higher median rent than NYC: San Jose
>($810), San Francisco ($709), San Diego ($672), Los Angeles ($647),
>Boston ($607) and Seattle ($567).
I believe some of these cities have rent control, though rents are nowhere
near as distorted as they are in New York. The one city I'm slightly familiar
with is San Francisco, since I have some close friends there. My one friend
had a 2-bedroom apartment in a desirable area (The Castro), complete with a
sundeck, and was paying $850/month in 1993. That was the going price for
similar apartments in that area at that time.
Now, let's go back to New York, to a similar neighborhood (the West Village),
in 1993. If you went out into the apartment marketplace, could you find a
2-bedroom apartment with a sundeck for $850/month in the West Village in 1993?
No way! You would've had to pay at least $2000/month at that time.
So, even though San Francisco had a higher median rent than New York City, the
going rents for apartments seems to be quite a bit lower. Maybe that's because
you don't have the situation where the person in 3A is paying $300/month
simply because they moved in a couple of decades ago or "inherited" the
apartment from his parents, while the person upstairs in 4A, with the same
exact apartment, is paying $1300/month because they had the misfortune of
renting in 1995.
>: The subsidization works like this: as I explained, landlords ***have***
> gotten
>: big rent increases over the years, and during the past few years, the
>: increases have been higher than inflation -- but because politicians are
> loath
>: to allow really big increases on current tenant/voters, it's been much more
>: politically expedient to have ****future**** tenants/voters bear much of the
>: brunt of the increases.
>
>That's not "subsidization". That's called "preventing rent gouging".
No, it's gouging newer tenants so that people who have lived in their
apartments for decades or "inherited" their apartment from a parent can enjoy
rents that are way below market price.
>: As far as previous attempts at rent control, I'm only familiar with the
>: current program, which was conceived in the World War 2 era and then modified
>
>: with rent stabilization in the early 70s.
>
>Repeating: rent control laws and rent stabilization laws are only
>similar in that they are both legislative price controls. That's
>where the similarity ends. They are not plug-compatible for the
>source of convenient argument. You cannot use anecdotal abuses
>under RC to scapegoat RS.
They are both still price controls. We do without price controls for food and
clothing, and that system seems to work pretty well. Why not shelter?
I want to see a system where landlords are competing for tenants, instead of
the other way around.
>: The biggest difference between New York and Philadelphia is that Philadelphia
>
>: has no rent control.
>
>Not on your life. Besides a big difference in respective population
>sizes, economies, culture and transportation efficiency, the
>biggest difference between NYC and Philly is that Philly isn't
>historically concentrated on a 24 square-mile island, and developers
>target their investment on less than half of it.
I noticed that you ignored my point that the median rents in comparable
neighborhoods were remarkably similar, yet the apartment marketplaces were so
different. Other differences are inconsequential with regard to their effect
on the apartment marketplace; in fact, both cities are quite similar in many
regards. They are both big Northeastern cities where development has
historically been concentrated in a central area. They both have complex
economies with particular concentrations in the finance sector, advertising,
and other white-collar industries. They both have declining manufacturing
bases. They both have extensive transportation infrastructures and cultural
life.
So, how come I can go out and search for a 3-room apartment for $750 or less
in 19102 (1990 median rent $641) and find one in a couple of hours, while in
10024 (1990 median rent $637), such a search would be futile? In these zip
codes, half the rents were under $641 and $637 in 1990, respectively, yet only
in 19102 were such apartments actually available in the marketplace.
The only real difference in the apartment marketplaces is that New York has
rent control/stabilization and Philly has no price controls. Philly doesn't
have people living in simple 3-room $200/month apartments in trendy areas, but
it also doesn't have people living in simple 3-room $1500 apartments in trendy
areas either. In Philly, if you're paying $700 for a simple 3-room apartment,
your upstairs neighbor with the same apartment but on a higher floor is paying
maybe $725 at most.
I love my adopted city of New York, but I think it would be a much better,
much more affordable place for the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers if
price controls on housing were lifted.
monchie has a fan - finally:
From: ylee@columbia.edu (Yeechang Lee)
Subject: Re: How to ensure rent controls.....
Date: 29 Apr 1997 13:56:13 GMT
Organization: World Domination for Fun and Profit, Inc.
monchie of nyc <monchum@interport.net> wrote:
> By the way, I am not a landlord, nor do I have any relatives who are
> landlords. I am a tenant in a rent-stabilized apartment. But I lived part of
> my adult life in a big city which did not have rent controls (Philadelphia),
> and I can assure you that the housing market is far more rational and
> affordable than New York City.
Well said. I am as much a Nu Yawk chauvinist and believer in its
innate superiority to the rest of the nation as anyone else, but free
market laws do not suddenly stop working east of the Hudson. How is
it that other big cities like Philly can do without rent control, yet
New York cannot? Why should a former wartime emergency measure be
considered such a sacred cow?
--
http://www.columbia.edu/~ylee/
monchie's flamer flames the fan:
From: SteveManes@REMOVEmagpie.com
Subject: Re: How to ensure rent controls.....
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:04:20 GMT
Organization: NYC Motorcyclists
Yeechang Lee (ylee@columbia.edu) wrote:
: How is
: it that other big cities like Philly can do without rent control, yet
: New York cannot?
Philadelphia and NYC are two completely different cities. Why is it
that no one wants to live in center-city Los Angeles, but New Yorkers
want to live in Manhattan? Why is it that Philadelphia has some of
the oldest and most decrepit slums in the nation when rent control is
the scapegoat for it in NYC? Cities aren't plug-compatible.
: Why should a former wartime emergency measure be
: considered such a sacred cow?
Rent CONTROL is a former wartime emergency measure and it was
abolished with vacancy decontrol in the early 70s. Rent
STABILIZATION was born following three years of de-control in the
mid-1970s after the same state legislature which had abandoned
rent CONTROL felt the need to respond to the massive tenant abuses,
gridlocked courts, rent gouging and a potential economic crisis by
passing the Emergency Tenant Protection Act and rent STABILIZATION.
monchie thanks his fan:
From: monchum@interport.net (monchie of nyc)
Subject: Re: How to ensure rent controls.....
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 23:53:13 GMT
Organization: Interport Communications Corp.
In article <slrn5mbvft.ocb.ylee@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>, ylee@columbia.edu (Yeechang Lee) wrote:
>monchie of nyc <monchum@interport.net> wrote:
>> By the way, I am not a landlord, nor do I have any relatives who are
>> landlords. I am a tenant in a rent-stabilized apartment. But I lived part of
>> my adult life in a big city which did not have rent controls (Philadelphia),
>> and I can assure you that the housing market is far more rational and
>> affordable than New York City.
>
>Well said. I am as much a Nu Yawk chauvinist and believer in its
>innate superiority to the rest of the nation as anyone else, but free
>market laws do not suddenly stop working east of the Hudson. How is
>it that other big cities like Philly can do without rent control, yet
>New York cannot? Why should a former wartime emergency measure be
>considered such a sacred cow?
Thank you.
I consider myself an adopted Nu Yawk chauvinist, but I am constantly amazed by
New Yorkers' myopic inability to see just how crazy the rent control/rent
stabilization system really is. IMO, it's a system which combines the worst
aspects of both socialism and capitalism in one package.
- monchie of nyc