6 ms·

The author seems very keen on rent control, but I think one should look more cool headedly at some alternatives that can achieve the same result by different me

The author seems very keen on rent control, but I think one should look more cool headedly at some alternatives that can achieve the same result by different means. Bombing the city in particular should be considered. Bombs could be supplied cheaply by the US army, where they are plentiful, and they could achieve the same level of devastation that rent control has produced in parts of NYC like the Bronx. Of course, they are also other ways to achieve the effects of rent control, like arson, bringing back Mongolian hordes from the dead, etc. What matters is that we can have an open, transparent debate about the best way to ruin the real estate stock of the city.

busterarm 11y ago
Rent Controlled units comprise less than 2% of the TOTAL housing in New York City. Stop this devastation bullshit. Non-resident tenants/illegal hotels likely dwarf this number significantly.
- potatolicious 11y ago
  Rent stabilization != rent control - this is confusing for people in other parts of the country where there is only one category of housing price regulation. 60% of all NYC housing units are under some form of rent regulation - either rent control, rent stabilization, or some other form of rent protection. Only about 40% of the housing stock is market-rate.
  - bradleyjg 11y ago
    On the other hand, many of those stabilized units are have market rate is less than the legal rate, and so are not effectively subject to price caps. Of course those units aren't in Manhattan south of 96th street or hip Brooklyn, so the type of people who write blog articles don't care.
- cynicalkane 11y ago
  NYC has several kinds of rent control. Some are called "rent control" by the city, others are called "rent stabilization". Economically, they are all rent control. And 60% of the city is subject to it.
  - boskonyc 11y ago
    Oh the injustice! Rent stabilization is only applicable to units costing $2500 or less (regardless of size), in buildings built between February 1, 1947 and January 1, 1974. http://www.nycrgb.org/html/resources/faq/rentstab.html#when http://www.nycrgb.org/html/resources/faq/rentstab.html#when
ectoplasm 11y ago
Why is rent stabilization bad? All it does is stop the rent from going up too much while you are living there. I wouldn't want to be a tenant without it - who wants to be forced to move because the rent went up by too much? As soon as you leave, the landlord can sign a new lease at whatever rent they like. That is distinct from "rent control" in NYC, which caps rents and is a much stronger measure, but only applies to tenants living in the same place since July 1st 1971, or March 31 1953 if it's an apartment in a 1 or 2 family home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York
- asquabventured 11y ago
  >Why is rent stabilization bad? It means that you've removed the incentive owners typically have to keep the place looking nice, repairing damages, etc. Why invest anything if you know your rate of return will be low or negative? I know liberals like to try to make unicorns exist but economics cuts through most of the lies and bullshit of politics.
  - ectoplasm 11y ago
    Oh, I don't live in NYC, but we have rent stabilization here and the landlord is allowed to increase the rent by a percentage of the current rent plus a percentage of the amount spent on repairs and renovations. If NYC doesn't compensate landlords for repairs, which in turn means they don't want to do them, I agree that is horrible.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    > I know liberals like to try to make unicorns exist but economics cuts through most of the lies and bullshit of politics. The irony of advocating for a liberal housing market, then turning around and claiming that this is not only apolitical, but also politically opposed by liberals, is delicious.
boskonyc 11y ago
A very vulgar response. I've heard it put in less stupid terms by other rightists. Although I've never heard a native New Yorker complain about rent control, regardless if they're rich or poor
- tsax 11y ago
  Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.” Cat got your tongue, comrade?
  - boskonyc 11y ago
    Amazing! What a strong argument. I've never heard of this (socialist) guy. Personally, I am a life-long new yorker (and capitalist) living in a luxury, deregulated building paying slightly more than market rate for my housing. My landlord does not raise my rent too aggressively, but could if he so chose. I sort of wish there were laws in place preventing him from doing so, but alas my unit is deregulated. In any case, he probably prefers long-term tenants, so doesn't need the government guidance on what a reasonable annual adjustment to my rent should be to keep me there. Still lol'ing about you calling me "comrade."
- cynicalkane 11y ago
  How many New Yorkers have you talked to? Not everyone is happy paying several times the rent of their neighbors, just because they were there first. We're also not really happy that a lot of the housing is slum-quality, since landlords generally want their tenants to move out and the law obliges them to make sure the guy paying $3000 and the guy paying $500 are equally miserable.
  - busterarm 11y ago
    I'm a rent-controlled tenant in a beautiful apartment building on West 55th Street. My rent is low, but not obscenely so. I lived here through the hard times when the neighborhood was shitty and filled with derelicts, winos and prostitutes. We all kept the building clean and nice. We lived in the building when _nobody wanted to live here_. We chased out the crooks who used to try to mug people in our elevator and kick open doors. The landlord made improvements to the building because the way the rent control law is designed, _they have to_ to get rent increases. And we're still here and a great tenant and great neighbors. Oh and of course the landlord has been trying all sorts of illegal means to get us (and the single-digit handful of other controlled tenants, 100+ unit building) out - and regularly gets verbally slapped around by a judge in housing court. It's a good thing we held on to hold on to _all of our records related to being in this apartment all the way back to 1970_...because we had to.
danharaj 11y ago
All I hear is: The poor do not deserve to live anywhere desirable.
- falsestprophet 11y ago
  We could operate the economy by lottery.
- murbard2 11y ago
  This has nothing to do with what anyone deserves or doesn't deserve. If you want the poor to live in desirable places, the best way to do that is to give them the money to do so. Trying to control prices directly has a track record of backfiring horribly, for reasons which are well understood by economists and uncontroversial.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    What is the difference between horrible and not horrible in this case? NYC is not in flames.
    - murbard2 11y ago
      The Bronx did go up in flames when landlords set their own buildings on fire as they were taking a loss on their rent controlled buildings, where the rent didn't even cover the mandatory maintenance.
      - busterarm 11y ago
        > The Bronx did go up in flames when landlords set their own buildings on fire as they were taking a loss on their rent controlled buildings, where the rent didn't even cover the mandatory maintenance. This is demonstrably wrong. Arson was involved in 7% of the fires and almost all in already abandoned buildings. Fire burned the bronx because city budget cuts closed fire departments, reduced fire inspections and caused hydrants to not work. FDNY administration rigged the closures to not affect the neighborhoods they lived in. http://nypost.com/2010/05/16/why-the-bronx-burned/ http://nypost.com/2010/05/16/why-the-bronx-burned/
rmxt 11y ago
When was the last time you went to the Bronx? 1977? The Bronx is no Williamsburg, but it's changing. Your snark is well-taken, but at least pick a city that's actually doing shitty... like Camden, NJ, or a decaying Rust Belt city.
- murbard2 11y ago
  Hey, I said "produced", not "producing"! It's definitely rebounded since then and I'm particularly excited about the upcoming developments on the southern part, by the water.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    Claiming that rent control alone "produced" the "Bronx is burning" is a bit like saying that "pouring water on the ground will cause a plant to grow" -- you've ignored the steps needed to get there. Just like farming, there are many steps: tilling the earth, burying the seed, giving it water and fertilizer. Redlining, white flight, drug epidemics and shoddy building codes and enforcement all contributed to urban decay in the Bronx in the 1970s.

busterarm 11y ago

Rent Controlled units comprise less than 2% of the TOTAL housing in New York City. Stop this devastation bullshit. Non-resident tenants/illegal hotels likely dwarf this number significantly.

potatolicious 11y ago
Rent stabilization != rent control - this is confusing for people in other parts of the country where there is only one category of housing price regulation. 60% of all NYC housing units are under some form of rent regulation - either rent control, rent stabilization, or some other form of rent protection. Only about 40% of the housing stock is market-rate.
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  On the other hand, many of those stabilized units are have market rate is less than the legal rate, and so are not effectively subject to price caps. Of course those units aren't in Manhattan south of 96th street or hip Brooklyn, so the type of people who write blog articles don't care.
cynicalkane 11y ago
NYC has several kinds of rent control. Some are called "rent control" by the city, others are called "rent stabilization". Economically, they are all rent control. And 60% of the city is subject to it.
- boskonyc 11y ago
  Oh the injustice! Rent stabilization is only applicable to units costing $2500 or less (regardless of size), in buildings built between February 1, 1947 and January 1, 1974. http://www.nycrgb.org/html/resources/faq/rentstab.html#when http://www.nycrgb.org/html/resources/faq/rentstab.html#when

ectoplasm 11y ago

Why is rent stabilization bad? All it does is stop the rent from going up too much while you are living there. I wouldn't want to be a tenant without it - who wants to be forced to move because the rent went up by too much? As soon as you leave, the landlord can sign a new lease at whatever rent they like. That is distinct from "rent control" in NYC, which caps rents and is a much stronger measure, but only applies to tenants living in the same place since July 1st 1971, or March 31 1953 if it's an apartment in a 1 or 2 family home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York

asquabventured 11y ago
>Why is rent stabilization bad? It means that you've removed the incentive owners typically have to keep the place looking nice, repairing damages, etc. Why invest anything if you know your rate of return will be low or negative? I know liberals like to try to make unicorns exist but economics cuts through most of the lies and bullshit of politics.
- ectoplasm 11y ago
  Oh, I don't live in NYC, but we have rent stabilization here and the landlord is allowed to increase the rent by a percentage of the current rent plus a percentage of the amount spent on repairs and renovations. If NYC doesn't compensate landlords for repairs, which in turn means they don't want to do them, I agree that is horrible.
- danharaj 11y ago
  > I know liberals like to try to make unicorns exist but economics cuts through most of the lies and bullshit of politics. The irony of advocating for a liberal housing market, then turning around and claiming that this is not only apolitical, but also politically opposed by liberals, is delicious.

boskonyc 11y ago

A very vulgar response. I've heard it put in less stupid terms by other rightists. Although I've never heard a native New Yorker complain about rent control, regardless if they're rich or poor

tsax 11y ago
Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.” Cat got your tongue, comrade?
- boskonyc 11y ago
  Amazing! What a strong argument. I've never heard of this (socialist) guy. Personally, I am a life-long new yorker (and capitalist) living in a luxury, deregulated building paying slightly more than market rate for my housing. My landlord does not raise my rent too aggressively, but could if he so chose. I sort of wish there were laws in place preventing him from doing so, but alas my unit is deregulated. In any case, he probably prefers long-term tenants, so doesn't need the government guidance on what a reasonable annual adjustment to my rent should be to keep me there. Still lol'ing about you calling me "comrade."
cynicalkane 11y ago
How many New Yorkers have you talked to? Not everyone is happy paying several times the rent of their neighbors, just because they were there first. We're also not really happy that a lot of the housing is slum-quality, since landlords generally want their tenants to move out and the law obliges them to make sure the guy paying $3000 and the guy paying $500 are equally miserable.
- busterarm 11y ago
  I'm a rent-controlled tenant in a beautiful apartment building on West 55th Street. My rent is low, but not obscenely so. I lived here through the hard times when the neighborhood was shitty and filled with derelicts, winos and prostitutes. We all kept the building clean and nice. We lived in the building when _nobody wanted to live here_. We chased out the crooks who used to try to mug people in our elevator and kick open doors. The landlord made improvements to the building because the way the rent control law is designed, _they have to_ to get rent increases. And we're still here and a great tenant and great neighbors. Oh and of course the landlord has been trying all sorts of illegal means to get us (and the single-digit handful of other controlled tenants, 100+ unit building) out - and regularly gets verbally slapped around by a judge in housing court. It's a good thing we held on to hold on to _all of our records related to being in this apartment all the way back to 1970_...because we had to.

danharaj 11y ago

All I hear is: The poor do not deserve to live anywhere desirable.

falsestprophet 11y ago
We could operate the economy by lottery.
murbard2 11y ago
This has nothing to do with what anyone deserves or doesn't deserve. If you want the poor to live in desirable places, the best way to do that is to give them the money to do so. Trying to control prices directly has a track record of backfiring horribly, for reasons which are well understood by economists and uncontroversial.
- danharaj 11y ago
  What is the difference between horrible and not horrible in this case? NYC is not in flames.
  - murbard2 11y ago
    The Bronx did go up in flames when landlords set their own buildings on fire as they were taking a loss on their rent controlled buildings, where the rent didn't even cover the mandatory maintenance.
    - busterarm 11y ago
      > The Bronx did go up in flames when landlords set their own buildings on fire as they were taking a loss on their rent controlled buildings, where the rent didn't even cover the mandatory maintenance. This is demonstrably wrong. Arson was involved in 7% of the fires and almost all in already abandoned buildings. Fire burned the bronx because city budget cuts closed fire departments, reduced fire inspections and caused hydrants to not work. FDNY administration rigged the closures to not affect the neighborhoods they lived in. http://nypost.com/2010/05/16/why-the-bronx-burned/ http://nypost.com/2010/05/16/why-the-bronx-burned/

rmxt 11y ago

When was the last time you went to the Bronx? 1977? The Bronx is no Williamsburg, but it's changing. Your snark is well-taken, but at least pick a city that's actually doing shitty... like Camden, NJ, or a decaying Rust Belt city.

murbard2 11y ago
Hey, I said "produced", not "producing"! It's definitely rebounded since then and I'm particularly excited about the upcoming developments on the southern part, by the water.
- rmxt 11y ago
  Claiming that rent control alone "produced" the "Bronx is burning" is a bit like saying that "pouring water on the ground will cause a plant to grow" -- you've ignored the steps needed to get there. Just like farming, there are many steps: tilling the earth, burying the seed, giving it water and fertilizer. Redlining, white flight, drug epidemics and shoddy building codes and enforcement all contributed to urban decay in the Bronx in the 1970s.