6 ms·

Rent stabilization in NYC isn't mandatory for new construction, so new buildup being condos is not a response to rent control (unless it's a response to the thr

Rent stabilization in NYC isn't mandatory for new construction, so new buildup being condos is not a response to rent control (unless it's a response to the threat of future rent control). Also, you'll need to explain how "sky high rents + abandoned buildings" corresponds to "Why renovate when you can't charge rents commensurately?" - if landlords can't charge rents commensurately, where are the sky high rents coming from? The argument that rent control prevents owners from maintaining their buildings is pure bullshit. There's not a rent-control law in existence that doesn't allow annual increases sufficient for maintenance. Buildings aren't maintained because the owner sees the opportunity for dramatically increased profits if the current tenant leaves and lets the building fall to shit in an effort to drive them out. As for why allowing people to stay in their homes is a good thing (and forgive me for being sentimental, but these are their homes, even if other people own the buildings - they do live there): there a few things that bother me about the free market religion: 1. The belief that all things with value have been priced appropriately. 2. The belief that ownership is the only form of risk that should be rewarded by society. Neighborhoods don't just magically become expensive to live in. I won't claim that the only reason is because good, noble people moved in when things were cheap and turned things around, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the people living in a place have nothing to do with that place becoming a desirable place for wealthier people to live. As for whether unskilled workers are somehow more deserving of a house in Manhattan than skilled workers: no, but then again, they don't deserve to be run away from their jobs and families simply because some rich asshole can price them out, either. You're making an emotional appeal for a guy with a family to have a right to be close to his job - that cuts both ways, you know.

natrius 18y ago
"Buildings aren't maintained because the owner sees the opportunity for dramatically increased profits if the current tenant leaves and lets the building fall to shit in an effort to drive them out." You say this as if it's not a side effect of rent control itself. Helping people avoid being priced out of their neighborhoods is desirable, but rent control has so many side effects that it's not worth it in my opinion. It's basically taxing people when they move to or within a city to pay the rent for people who have stayed in the same place. There are probably better ways to achieve that goal.
- calambrac 18y ago
  Of course it's a side effect of rent control, but it's not a necessary side-effect of rent control. Rent control laws do allow for increases to cover maintenance, so the money is there. It's not like doing away with rent-control would have a better outcome from the POV of the tenant - instead of living in a gradually deteriorating building, they'd just have been kicked out. BTW, I'm not a necessarily a fan of rent control, I just like its goal. I really don't know enough about the issue to make an informed policy decision either way. My main point originally was just that this article was terrible - stupidly reasoned and completely lacking in meaningful evidence that would let me make an informed policy decision.
yummyfajitas 18y ago
"Rent stabilization in NYC isn't mandatory for new construction," In NYC, future crazy regulations are always a worry. Most new construction IS rent controlled. My previous apartment (built to be condos, but the owner was unable to sell) was. To evade various ridiculous NYC taxes (which make a lot of new construction unviable), you need to submit to rent control. "if landlords can't charge rents commensurately, where are the sky high rents coming from?" Sky high rents come from current demand. Rent control provides a disincentive to long term investments like new construction or major renovations to rental buildings. Incidentally, neither of the "things that bother you about the free market religion" are actually part of the free market ideology. 1) only applies to efficient markets (like the rental market, with many buyers and sellers, and good information) and 2) is closer to the Clinton/Bush/Dodd/Obama ideology that ownership is something to encourage. "Neighborhoods don't just magically become expensive to live in. I won't claim that the only reason is because good, noble people moved in when things were cheap and turned things around, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the people living in a place have nothing to do with that place becoming a desirable place for wealthier people to live." In some cases the people are completely unrelated. The main attraction to living in Harlem is the 1-6 trains. Having tried to get a sublet for my old place, I discovered that the people living there make it less desirable to live in. "You're making an emotional appeal for a guy with a family to have a right to be close to his job - that cuts both ways, you know." As far as who "deserves" to live on some place, it's a wash. So lets not favor any particular group over the other. As far as emotional appeals go, I'm not casting any group of people as assholes.
- calambrac 18y ago
  "To evade various ridiculous NYC taxes (which make a lot of new construction unviable), you need to submit to rent control." Agreeing to not displace people to cash in on temporary market swings seems like a better tax shelter than some others I've heard of. "Sky high rents come from current demand. Rent control provides a disincentive to long term investments like new construction or major renovations to rental buildings." This doesn't make any sense. Without the current rent-control laws, the incentive would be to keep the housing supply low and spike rental rates. New construction would still be difficult (because it's NYC), plus current owners would spend their political capital on preventing it from happening to keep their incomes up. "Incidentally, neither of the 'things that bother you about the free market religion' are actually part of the free market ideology. 1) only applies to efficient markets (like the rental market, with many buyers and sellers, and good information) and 2) is closer to the Clinton/Bush/Dodd/Obama ideology that ownership is something to encourage." Maybe I should be more clear, my fault. My first point has less to do with pricing efficiency than with the basic idea that certain things with value can be priced at all (a person's contribution to the appeal of a neighborhood, for instance). My second point was that there are other kinds of risk (living in a bad neighborhood for its cheap rent) that should be rewarded by society over ownership (the windfall that the owner of a slum stumbles into as the neighborhood appreciates in value). "In some cases the people are completely unrelated." Of course, I never implied otherwise. My next sentence after the one you quoted was that I wouldn't claim such a thing. As for Harlem, I was almost going to use that to illustrate my point. Prices there are a lot cheaper there right now than the location would suggest they should be, and (despite your experience) tons of people are starting to look that way. Assuming living in the city stays cool, do you really think it's going to be as cheap as it is today in five years? And everyone who's moving there right now, who are going to make it that super-desirable place to live? They'll be priced out (see: SoHo, parts of Brooklyn, Hell's Kitchen, etc., etc). "As far as who "deserves" to live on some place, it's a wash. So lets not favor any particular group over the other." I disagree, let's favor the particular group that was already there, that's already established the place as their home. "As far as emotional appeals go, I'm not casting any group of people as assholes." Really? I've got some rental agencies to introduce you to.
sokoloff 18y ago
"The argument that rent control prevents owners from maintaining their buildings is pure bullshit. There's not a rent-control law in existence that doesn't allow annual increases sufficient for maintenance. Buildings aren't maintained because the owner sees the opportunity for dramatically increased profits if the current tenant leaves and lets the building fall to shit in an effort to drive them out." Read that paragraph slowly and see if you can find the causal relationship between rent control and buildings not being maintained. It's easier to find than Waldo... While true that it doesn't prevent them by force of law from maintaining the buildings, the natural profit-seeking motivations will cause a sharp increase in deferred or eliminated maintenance and improvements, as the landlord wins either way: either they save 1-2% in current expenses or they get to reset the rent to market rents if the tenant gets too sick of their shithole. Seems pretty far from "pure bullshit" to me...
- calambrac 18y ago
  Your comment has exactly the same information, that owners are not prevented but are disincentivized from maintaining their properties in a rent control environment, as the snippet of text you quoted from me. How did you manage to be a sarcastic prick about restating exactly what I said? Anyways, from the POV of the tenant who is faced with eviction or a gradually deteriorating building, which do you think is the preferable option?
  - sokoloff 18y ago
    Clearly living in a deteroriating building is better than being evicted. However, eviction is not the alternative to rent control. Being evicted is different from having your rent raised to market rates, and is different from having your lease not renewed. It may be a legal consequence of tenants deciding not to leave and/or not to pay a higher rent, but it's not like the choice we're debating is eviction vs rent control. As to my restatement, you claimed that argument X is "pure bullshit" in a short paragraph that shows you clearly understand that argument X is much more accurate than inaccurate. If quoting that paragraph and asking you to observe that contradiction makes me a prick, so be it. (I'll admit to being sarcastic; if you want to call me a prick on the internet over it, I'll still sleep OK.)

natrius 18y ago

"Buildings aren't maintained because the owner sees the opportunity for dramatically increased profits if the current tenant leaves and lets the building fall to shit in an effort to drive them out." You say this as if it's not a side effect of rent control itself. Helping people avoid being priced out of their neighborhoods is desirable, but rent control has so many side effects that it's not worth it in my opinion. It's basically taxing people when they move to or within a city to pay the rent for people who have stayed in the same place. There are probably better ways to achieve that goal.

calambrac 18y ago
Of course it's a side effect of rent control, but it's not a necessary side-effect of rent control. Rent control laws do allow for increases to cover maintenance, so the money is there. It's not like doing away with rent-control would have a better outcome from the POV of the tenant - instead of living in a gradually deteriorating building, they'd just have been kicked out. BTW, I'm not a necessarily a fan of rent control, I just like its goal. I really don't know enough about the issue to make an informed policy decision either way. My main point originally was just that this article was terrible - stupidly reasoned and completely lacking in meaningful evidence that would let me make an informed policy decision.

yummyfajitas 18y ago

"Rent stabilization in NYC isn't mandatory for new construction," In NYC, future crazy regulations are always a worry. Most new construction IS rent controlled. My previous apartment (built to be condos, but the owner was unable to sell) was. To evade various ridiculous NYC taxes (which make a lot of new construction unviable), you need to submit to rent control. "if landlords can't charge rents commensurately, where are the sky high rents coming from?" Sky high rents come from current demand. Rent control provides a disincentive to long term investments like new construction or major renovations to rental buildings. Incidentally, neither of the "things that bother you about the free market religion" are actually part of the free market ideology. 1) only applies to efficient markets (like the rental market, with many buyers and sellers, and good information) and 2) is closer to the Clinton/Bush/Dodd/Obama ideology that ownership is something to encourage. "Neighborhoods don't just magically become expensive to live in. I won't claim that the only reason is because good, noble people moved in when things were cheap and turned things around, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the people living in a place have nothing to do with that place becoming a desirable place for wealthier people to live." In some cases the people are completely unrelated. The main attraction to living in Harlem is the 1-6 trains. Having tried to get a sublet for my old place, I discovered that the people living there make it less desirable to live in. "You're making an emotional appeal for a guy with a family to have a right to be close to his job - that cuts both ways, you know." As far as who "deserves" to live on some place, it's a wash. So lets not favor any particular group over the other. As far as emotional appeals go, I'm not casting any group of people as assholes.

calambrac 18y ago
"To evade various ridiculous NYC taxes (which make a lot of new construction unviable), you need to submit to rent control." Agreeing to not displace people to cash in on temporary market swings seems like a better tax shelter than some others I've heard of. "Sky high rents come from current demand. Rent control provides a disincentive to long term investments like new construction or major renovations to rental buildings." This doesn't make any sense. Without the current rent-control laws, the incentive would be to keep the housing supply low and spike rental rates. New construction would still be difficult (because it's NYC), plus current owners would spend their political capital on preventing it from happening to keep their incomes up. "Incidentally, neither of the 'things that bother you about the free market religion' are actually part of the free market ideology. 1) only applies to efficient markets (like the rental market, with many buyers and sellers, and good information) and 2) is closer to the Clinton/Bush/Dodd/Obama ideology that ownership is something to encourage." Maybe I should be more clear, my fault. My first point has less to do with pricing efficiency than with the basic idea that certain things with value can be priced at all (a person's contribution to the appeal of a neighborhood, for instance). My second point was that there are other kinds of risk (living in a bad neighborhood for its cheap rent) that should be rewarded by society over ownership (the windfall that the owner of a slum stumbles into as the neighborhood appreciates in value). "In some cases the people are completely unrelated." Of course, I never implied otherwise. My next sentence after the one you quoted was that I wouldn't claim such a thing. As for Harlem, I was almost going to use that to illustrate my point. Prices there are a lot cheaper there right now than the location would suggest they should be, and (despite your experience) tons of people are starting to look that way. Assuming living in the city stays cool, do you really think it's going to be as cheap as it is today in five years? And everyone who's moving there right now, who are going to make it that super-desirable place to live? They'll be priced out (see: SoHo, parts of Brooklyn, Hell's Kitchen, etc., etc). "As far as who "deserves" to live on some place, it's a wash. So lets not favor any particular group over the other." I disagree, let's favor the particular group that was already there, that's already established the place as their home. "As far as emotional appeals go, I'm not casting any group of people as assholes." Really? I've got some rental agencies to introduce you to.

sokoloff 18y ago

"The argument that rent control prevents owners from maintaining their buildings is pure bullshit. There's not a rent-control law in existence that doesn't allow annual increases sufficient for maintenance. Buildings aren't maintained because the owner sees the opportunity for dramatically increased profits if the current tenant leaves and lets the building fall to shit in an effort to drive them out." Read that paragraph slowly and see if you can find the causal relationship between rent control and buildings not being maintained. It's easier to find than Waldo... While true that it doesn't prevent them by force of law from maintaining the buildings, the natural profit-seeking motivations will cause a sharp increase in deferred or eliminated maintenance and improvements, as the landlord wins either way: either they save 1-2% in current expenses or they get to reset the rent to market rents if the tenant gets too sick of their shithole. Seems pretty far from "pure bullshit" to me...

calambrac 18y ago
Your comment has exactly the same information, that owners are not prevented but are disincentivized from maintaining their properties in a rent control environment, as the snippet of text you quoted from me. How did you manage to be a sarcastic prick about restating exactly what I said? Anyways, from the POV of the tenant who is faced with eviction or a gradually deteriorating building, which do you think is the preferable option?
- sokoloff 18y ago
  Clearly living in a deteroriating building is better than being evicted. However, eviction is not the alternative to rent control. Being evicted is different from having your rent raised to market rates, and is different from having your lease not renewed. It may be a legal consequence of tenants deciding not to leave and/or not to pay a higher rent, but it's not like the choice we're debating is eviction vs rent control. As to my restatement, you claimed that argument X is "pure bullshit" in a short paragraph that shows you clearly understand that argument X is much more accurate than inaccurate. If quoting that paragraph and asking you to observe that contradiction makes me a prick, so be it. (I'll admit to being sarcastic; if you want to call me a prick on the internet over it, I'll still sleep OK.)