3 ms·
That's really not actually why these laws have been created. Their intent has always been to protect existing residents. Not poor or low income, necessarily,
by CPLX 7y ago
That's really not actually why these laws have been created.
Their intent has always been to protect existing residents.
Not poor or low income, necessarily, in fact for the most part the original idea was to protect the middle class, not so much the poor. Which should be unsurprising if you have any basic concept of who wields political power in cities.
The key distinction is between people who are already there and people who aren't. Your assumption is a very common one but it's a misconception, and the difference is pretty crucial. It's not that hard to figure out: having massive rent increases possible upon vacancy, as well as almost no means testing (only in one special case) are two of the several obvious tells.
- chimeracoder 7y ago> That's really not actually why these laws have been created. Their intent has always been to protect existing residents. I'm well aware of the history of rent regulation in New York City, and this is flat-out incorrect. > Not poor or low income, necessarily, in fact for the most part the original idea was to protect the middle class, not so much the poor. Which should be unsurprising if you have any basic concept of who wields political power in cities. Rent stabilization, in its current form, is a handout to the upper-middle class, couched in rhetoric about helping the "poor" and "working class". > It's not that hard to figure out: having massive rent increases possible upon vacancy, as well as almost no means testing (only in one special case) are two of the several obvious tells. This is... not how the rent stabilization law in New York City works.