bruno annouces war on tenants-2 (fwd)
ROSAPHILIA
*******! Better Living Thru Better Living !*******************************
* Snail Me Your Rosehips | GABRIELLI Winery's (Mendocino, CA) Zinfandel, *
* If You Liked This Post | Ascenza (white-wine blend),Pinot Noir --Yummy!*
**************************************************************************
http://www.escape.com/~rugosa
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 00:24:06 -0500 (EST)
From: ROSAPHILIA <rug...@escape.com>
To: rug...@escape.com
Subject: nyc-120696-01.html
BRUNO ANNOUNCES GOP WAR ON TENANTS
12/6/96, New York Times, B1, "G.O.P. Leader Urges Ending of Rent
Rules" (Richard Perez-Pena)
12/6/96, New York Post, p. 4, "Rent Laws Face Eviction Fight" (Dan
Janison and Gregg Birnhaum)
The latest front in the state GOP's war on New York's middle class and
poor has been announced by Republican Majority Leader Joe Bruno. In a
New York City speech before a powerful landlord group, the Rent
Stabilization Association, Bruno has announced the intention of the
state GOP during the upcoming session of the State legislature to
insure the killing of rent regulation in New York.
Apparently, the GOP gave Bruno the assignment to make the announcement
in order to avoid political fall-out on either D'Amato or Pataki's in
their reelection efforts in 1998. Bruno represents certain upstate
communities which are not subject to state rent regulation.
Large landlord groups, along with individual landlords, provide
massive amounts of political donations to the state Republican machine
according to the New York Times. This past year, landlord groups
donated $174,000 to the Senate Republican Campaign Committee. If the
GOP strategy is successful, real estate interests will likely pour
even larger sums of political contributions to both D'Amato and
Pataki.
New York law provides some form of rent regulation to various
communities including New York City as well as suburban areas. These
regulations are referred to as either rent control or rent
stabilization depending on the age of the building and when the tenant
moved into the apartment. Every two years, the rent regulation
statutes must be renewed by the legislature.
The state rent regulatory system provides for fixed percentage rent
increases for rental apartments subject to the regulation. In
addition, a rent regulated tenant is insured of continued occupancy so
long as the tenant pays the rent, obeys the terms of the lease and as
well as applicable laws. The New York State Division of Housing and
Community Renewal is the state agency responsible for enforcing the
rent regulatory system. A few months ago, Pataki forced DHCR
Commissioner Joe Holland out of office due to a memo authored by
Holland critical of a D'Amato crony.
Without rent regulation, a tenant has no guarantee to a written lease,
a renewal of that written lease or any legal assurance of continued
occupancy. Without a written or statutory lease, a tenant is
considered a "tenant at will." A landlord can evict a tenant at will
at the landlord's whim after sending the tenant a thirty day notice.
If successful, the GOP's effort to eliminate rent regulation will
provide an opportunity for landlord's to raise rents substantially and
cause the rapid dislocation of families due to evictions.
During his recent speech, Bruno announced the GOP's strategy. They
will seek to compel the State Assembly to agree to the elimination of
all rent regulation by mid-1999 (one year after D'Amato and Pataki are
up for reelection) or the GOP controlled State Senate will refuse to
enact legislation continuing present system. Due to the sunset
provision of the present law, without State Senate approval all rent
regulation would end by June 15, 1996. Bruno was quite clear in his
intent: "When a law sunsets, it sunsets all by itself. You don't need
the Assembly, you don't need the Governor. That's the framework in
which we're going to work."
In a prepared remark to Bruno's speech, Pataki confirmed the GOP view
that New York should move toward a market rent system which provided
limited protections for only "senior citizens, the disabled and those
on fixed incomes." As an ardent supporter of deregulation and
devolution of authority to the counties, it is expected that Pataki
and the State GOP will continue to use Bruno as the primary attacker
against rent regulation for New York's middle class. As Bruno bluntly
put it:
"Whatever happens will happen. But New York City is New York City
and people will live where they feel (sic.) that it is most
affordable..."
Home
Harvey
If you want to be an drone extension of the NYS democratic party
then be factual at least. The issue of rent control and rent
stabilization should not be a partisan issue. Rent control
tends to be more of an issue with the wealthy democratic campaign
contributors, as evidenced in the financial disclosure reports
of folks like Mr. Silver and his friends.
It would be most appropriate if the NY democratic party instead
of crying would try to offer workable solutions.
their lost lulus work as a political party to provide solutions.
you should
David W. Truland
Harvey <hbr...@ix.netcom.com>, in article
<32F5F9...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
> If you want to be an drone extension of the NYS democratic party
> then be factual at least. The issue of rent control and rent
> stabilization should not be a partisan issue. Rent control
> tends to be more of an issue with the wealthy democratic campaign
> contributors, as evidenced in the financial disclosure reports
> of folks like Mr. Silver and his friends.
Fascinating. Exactly which Democratic contributors are (1) wealthy
and (2) favor maintaining the current system of rent control?
[...]
----------------------------------------
http://www.albany.net/~truland/
Dave
Please cite some current articles. Not news that is 2 months old.
Harvey
David W. Truland wrote:
>
> Harvey <hbr...@ix.netcom.com>, in article
> <32F5F9...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > then be factual at least. The issue of rent control and rent
> > stabilization should not be a partisan issue. Rent control
> > tends to be more of an issue with the wealthy democratic campaign
> > contributors, as evidenced in the financial disclosure reports
> > of folks like Mr. Silver and his friends.
>
> and (2) favor maintaining the current system of rent control?
> [...]
> ----------------------------------------
> http://www.albany.net/~truland/
Drones that parrot Mr. Silver, and the democratic party line
verbatim using various names. The only interesting thing about
this self-serving rheteric is that a poll of "political"
types in the NYS criminal justice system shows an overwelming
dominance of democratic politicians, especially Speakers,
who were convicted of crimes involving real estate, yet were
advocates of "rent control." Their is indeed a massive shortage
of affordable housing in Manhattan and the other boroughs that
should be mitigated in a positive way not by friends of or
those invariably seeking non-competitive public employment.
of disgraced
various names.
Harvey
David W. Truland wrote:
>
> Harvey <hbr...@ix.netcom.com>, in article
> <32F5F9...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > then be factual at least. The issue of rent control and rent
> > stabilization should not be a partisan issue. Rent control
> > tends to be more of an issue with the wealthy democratic campaign
> > contributors, as evidenced in the financial disclosure reports
> > of folks like Mr. Silver and his friends.
>
> and (2) favor maintaining the current system of rent control?
> [...]
> ----------------------------------------
> http://www.albany.net/~truland/
I'm intrigued. Since my background as a Congressional Aide and
Assembly staff both for NYC politicians kinda qualifies me, I
would be curious as to your background. It is most relevant to
note that there are many more wealthy democrats than republicans
downstate, of course reflective of the numerical superiority
of the democratic party. My experiences have strongly suggested
that current system of rent control serves the interests of the
wealthy and the various politicians catering to special
interests. Try to obtain rental housing in Manhattan, and you
will surely learn the failure of rent control and rent
stabilization. Studies made by the media including the Village
Voice always show the incredibly large amount of democratic
elected officials and their campaign contributors own most of
the rent controlled housing in NYC. Individuals like the
husband of Geraldine Ferraro, several Council members,
cronies, who I won't identify, have been successfully prosecuted
for thievery in the rent control industry. Of course let's not
forget former Speaker Mel Miller and his incarceration for this
type of activity.
won't identify
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general Cyrus Afzali <caf...@interport.net> wrote:
:) On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 17:55:05 -0800, Harvey <hbr...@ix.netcom.com>
:) wrote:
:) >
:) > I'm intrigued. Since my background as a Congressional Aide and
:) > Assembly staff both for NYC politicians kinda qualifies me, I
:) > would be curious as to your background. It is most relevant to
:) > note that there are many more wealthy democrats than republicans
:) > downstate, of course reflective of the numerical superiority
:) > of the democratic party. My experiences have strongly suggested
:) > that current system of rent control serves the interests of the
:) > wealthy and the various politicians catering to special
:) > interests.
:) Let me start off by saying I'm an educated person who knows a bit
:) about the business world. But what I don't understand about people who
:) want to abolish all forms of rent control is how they think it will
:) work in NYC?
:) By that I mean, given the fact that the occupancy rate in the
:) desirable sections of the city is already very high, doesn't it stand
:) to reason that a landlord will be able to get most anything he wants
:) for his property.
As he/she should. It *is* their property. If I have a collectible
car that is worth $20k in NYC because it's "in vogue" and worth only
$10k anywhere else, I still have the right to sell it for $20k here
if someone is willing to pay that. It's called free enterprise.
Chris
--
Christopher Mauritz | For info on internet access:
ri...@interactive.net | finger/mail in...@interactive.net OR
IBS Interactive, Inc. | http://www.interactive.net/
Marc Stager
Chris Mauritz wrote:
re:
>> Let me start off by saying I'm an educated person who knows a bit
>> about the business world. But what I don't understand about people who
>> want to abolish all forms of rent control is how they think it will
>> work in NYC?
>>
>> By that I mean, given the fact that the occupancy rate in the
>> desirable sections of the city is already very high, doesn't it stand
>> to reason that a landlord will be able to get most anything he wants
>> for his property.
>
>
> As he/she should. It *is* their property. If I have a collectible
> car that is worth $20k in NYC because it's "in vogue" and worth only
> $10k anywhere else, I still have the right to sell it for $20k here
> if someone is willing to pay that. It's called free enterprise.
>
> Chris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, Chris, what are you going to do about the people living
in your car?
Oh, there's noone living in your car? Then by all means,
do as you wish. Nobody's getting hurt.
Big difference, right, Chris?
And wouldn't you just love to move your tenement apartment house
from East New York to Central Park West?
Not really the same thing, is it Chris?
Brilliant.
____________________________________________ Marc Stager
Marc Stager
Chris Mauritz wrote:
Big difference, right, Chris?
from East New York to Central Park West? Same bricks and mortar
would fetch 10 times the price.
Not really the same thing, is it Chris?
You wanna get a million bucks for your gullwing Mercedes?
Go for it. You wanna destroy peoples' lives? There's a law
that won't allow you to do that, and it should remain in force.
______________________________________________ Marc Stager
Marc Stager
Chris Mauritz wrote:
re:
>> Let me start off by saying I'm an educated person who knows a bit
>> about the business world. But what I don't understand about people who
>> want to abolish all forms of rent control is how they think it will
>> work in NYC?
>>
>> By that I mean, given the fact that the occupancy rate in the
>> desirable sections of the city is already very high, doesn't it stand
>> to reason that a landlord will be able to get most anything he wants
>> for his property.
>
>
> As he/she should. It *is* their property. If I have a collectible
> car that is worth $20k in NYC because it's "in vogue" and worth only
> $10k anywhere else, I still have the right to sell it for $20k here
> if someone is willing to pay that. It's called free enterprise.
>
> Chris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, Chris, what are you going to do about the people living
in your car?
Oh, there's noone living in your car? Then by all means,
do as you wish. Nobody's getting hurt.
Big difference, right, Chris?
And wouldn't you just love to move your tenement apartment house
from East New York to Central Park West? Same bricks and mortar
would fetch 10 times the price.
Not really the same thing, is it, Chris?
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general Marc Stager <sso...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:) Chris Mauritz wrote:
:) re:
:) >> Let me start off by saying I'm an educated person who knows a bit
:) >> about the business world. But what I don't understand about people who
:) >> want to abolish all forms of rent control is how they think it will
:) >> work in NYC?
:) >>
:) >> By that I mean, given the fact that the occupancy rate in the
:) >> desirable sections of the city is already very high, doesn't it stand
:) >> to reason that a landlord will be able to get most anything he wants
:) >> for his property.
:) >
:) >
:) > As he/she should. It *is* their property. If I have a collectible
:) > car that is worth $20k in NYC because it's "in vogue" and worth only
:) > $10k anywhere else, I still have the right to sell it for $20k here
:) > if someone is willing to pay that. It's called free enterprise.
:) >
:) > Chris
:) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
:) So, Chris, what are you going to do about the people living
:) in your car?
Send them to your rent controlled apartment on Central Park South.
:) Oh, there's noone living in your car? Then by all means,
:) do as you wish. Nobody's getting hurt.
Gee thanks. It *is* my property.
:) Big difference, right, Chris?
None whatsoever.
:) And wouldn't you just love to move your tenement apartment house
:) from East New York to Central Park West?
Last I checked, people had feet. They have choices about where
to work and live. If you can't afford to live in an area without
rent control, move into an area where you can.
:) Not really the same thing, is it Chris?
Yes it is.
:) Brilliant.
Why thank you.
Marc Stager
Mark Weinstock wrote:
> (1) Let's say you own a house. Let's say you paid $100,000 for it. Now the
> free market value of your house is $300,000, but the town in which you live
> forces you to say to a seller, "You know what? I know this house is worth
> $300,00, but I'm going to sell it to you for $150,000." That's essentially
> what Rent Control does.
>
> (2) Another example. I'm a computer programmer. I want to work for a company.
> The company is willing to pay me $100,000 a year, but the city in which I
> live says that computer programmers can't make more than $50,000 a year, or
> 15% above what they were making at their last job.
>
> (3) The first example is about property. The second is about income. Both
> relate to renting out apartments. Do you really think either of these is a
> reasonable course of action for a city?
>
> Y(4) ou say "what about the people living in the apartment?" Well, if the demand
> ofr apartments dried up, then just maybe rents would come down a little,
> and they could afford something else... Rent control essentially forces a
> shortage of apartments, and increases the price of non-rent controlled apts.
>
> Mark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mark,
If your only resposibility is to yourself, you can get what the market
can bear on whatever, a Marantz tube preamp, a Picasso print, Jackie
Kennedy's old toilet seat.
If there is someone else involved, such as a familiy dependent upon
your
property, things change and there must be a law to protect them,
sometimes
at some loss of additional monies to the you, the landlord.
If there were enough people employed by the municipal government to do
a
case-by-case evaluation of rent stabilized/controlled tenants' needs,
I'm
sure they would find many instances of wealthy people taking advantage
of
sub-market rents. Many, but far from the majority. Many more would be
homeless otherwise. There should be a property tax adjustment, however,
if the same law keeping the rents down makes it impossible for the owner
to maintain his building in livable condition. There are far too many
abandoned buildings in New York simply because the owners couldn't
afford the taxes.
If rent control or stabilization makes your rent income lower than it
would
be otherwise, remember it was you who decided to buy the apartment house
and
reap that income, which has probably been flowing for years.
(2) Government jobs pay less than those in the private sector simply
because
they are funded by taxes. If you don't want to work for the government,
get
a job for some corporation. Unfortunately, it could be said that an
apartment
house owner is working for the government in that the government is
regulating his income. In that case it's not so easy, but he can always
sell the building.
(3) Neither is reasonable for the owner. But eliminating rent laws
would not only be less reasonable for the greater number, the tenants,
it would be devastating.
(4) That's theory. In the real world, rents would go up, way up, and
stay there. Remember when inflation was near 20% and New York State
had a usury law limiting credit cards to a maximium of 12% interest?
Citibank threatened to move its credit card division to South Dakota
if those laws weren't repealed. They were repealed but it was too late,
they moved and raised credit card rates to over 20%.
Now inflation is almost zero, Citibank pays 1.5 % on its Savings
accounts but do you think their credit cards are any lower?
Annual percentage rate on Visa: 16.8, cash advances: 19.8%. Same thing
would happen with rents. Proterty values would rise and fall, but
uncontrolled rents would remain sky high in New York.
The streets would be teeming homeless.
_____________________________________________________________ Marc
Stager
Tony Miller
sta...@hiway1.exit109.com (Bill Kolstad) wrote:
>>Marc,
>>
>>Let's say you own a house. Let's say you paid $100,000 for it. Now the
>>free market value of your house is $300,000, but the town in which you live
>>forces you to say to a seller, "You know what? I know this house is worth
>>$300,00, but I'm going to sell it to you for $150,000." That's essentially
>>what Rent Control does.
>No, that's not what rent control does. In this case you are selling,
>transferring ownership. In the case of rent you still retain ownership.
>You are charging for use and what rent control is doing is insuring
>against a person charging more for use than is fair.
What is fair is whatever the market can bear. If you can't afford to
rent an apartment in a certain place, don't live there. If enough
people can't afford apartments, they will remain vacant, and the price
will come down. That is the essence of the free market.
>>Another example... I'm a computer programmer. I want to work for a company.
>>The company is willing to pay me $100,000 a year, but the city in which I
>>live says that computer programmers can't make more than $50,000 a year, or
>>15% above what they were making at their last job.
>This example doesn't hold water.
Of course it does. Explain why you think it doesn't? You are selling
a service (the right to live in an apartment, and the maintenance on
said dwelling), How can you in good concience limit the amount of
money someone can make on their enterprise unless you are a socialist?
>>The first example is about property. The second is about income. Both
>>relate to renting out apartments. Do you really think either of these is a
>>reasonable course of action for a city?
>>
>But renting is not selling. And protecting the rights of tenants is as
>important as protecting the rights of the owners.
No, renting is supplying a service. And tenants shouldn't have any
*rights* outside what is spelled out in thier rental agreement. (And
basic zoning and health codes).
>>You say "what about the people living in the apartment?" Well, if the demand
>>ofr apartments dried up, then just maybe rents would come down a little,
>>and they could afford something else... Rent control essentially forces a
>>shortage of apartments, and increases the price of non-rent controlled apts.
>>
>That is a bogus claim. What do you suggest, people live someplace other
>than apartments they can afford? If rent control ends all rents will
>raise up to the levels where many of the people living in them can not
>afford them. Then what, huh? They all move to somewhere cheaper, what a
>joke. There won't be anywhere cheaper within the area. Why do you think
>there is such demand for apartments, because there aren't any cheaper
>places to live. So we should all just stop desiring a place to live so
>the owners can profit even more. Or maybe we should all just move away
>from our places of work and life. This is an issue of greed pure and
>simple.
Then move somewhere else. You don't have a *right* to live in a
certain area. And I submit that your problem is envy, pure and
simple.
--
URL: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2610
My opinion and 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee...
Chris Mauritz
Tony Miller (comput...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Then move somewhere else. You don't have a *right* to live in a
: certain area. And I submit that your problem is envy, pure and
: simple.
It's a combination of envy, misguided social engineering,
and faulty economic theory. :)
Price controls in general, and rent control in particular
simply doesn't work.
Chris
--
----------------------------+--------------------------------
Christopher Mauritz | IBS Interactive, Inc.
ri...@interactive.net | Public Access Unix/Internet
maur...@spcunb.spc.edu | (201)301-2220
----------------------------+--------------------------------
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Mark Weinstock wrote:
> Let's say you own a house. Let's say you paid $100,000 for it. Now the
> free market value of your house is $300,000, but the town in which you live
> forces you to say to a seller, "You know what? I know this house is worth
> $300,00, but I'm going to sell it to you for $150,000." That's essentially
> what Rent Control does.
"Free Market Value"
What a joke.
You live in a tenement building.
Your apartment has not had needed repairs for years.
You windows are drafty, your stove barely works, heat...what's that?
Now the landlord dances with glee since old lady Cohen has dropped dead
and he gets control of her apartment.
The landlord guts her apartment, installs new windows and appliances and
rents it for $1,500/mo to some asshole with bucks.
The "Fair Market Rent" for your crummy, drafty apartment just went up to
$1,5000/mo????
Hahahahaha.
> Another example... I'm a computer programmer. I want to work for a company.
> The company is willing to pay me $100,000 a year, but the city in which I
> live says that computer programmers can't make more than $50,000 a year, or
> 15% above what they were making at their last job.
You are paying $700/mo for your apartment. Some yuppie scum are conned
by a realtor into paying $1,500/mo for the apartment above you.
The landlord now says your lease is up and you must pay the "Fair Market
Rent" for your apartment, which is based on the assholes upstairs.
Hahahahahaha.
>
> The first example is about property. The second is about income. Both
> relate to renting out apartments. Do you really think either of these is a
> reasonable course of action for a city?
>
> You say "what about the people living in the apartment?"
> Well, if the demand ofr apartments dried up,
Pigs will fly first. Guaranteed.
> then just maybe rents would come down a little,
Pigs will provide in-flight meals first. Guaranteed.
> and they could afford something else... Rent control essentially forces a
> shortage of apartments, and increases the price of non-rent controlled apts.
>
Get real.
"The Truth will set you free, or get you killed."
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks wrote:
:) Mark Weinstock wrote:
:) You windows are drafty, your stove barely works, heat...what's that?
:) Now the landlord dances with glee since old lady Cohen has dropped dead
:) and he gets control of her apartment.
:) The landlord guts her apartment, installs new windows and appliances and
:) rents it for $1,500/mo to some asshole with bucks.
^^^^^^^
My my. A bit envious are we?
:) You are paying $700/mo for your apartment. Some yuppie scum are conned
^^^^^^^^^^^
That confirms it.
If you can't afford to live in a nicer area or a nicer apartment,
you epect the gummint to effectively tax landlords so that you can
live there anyway. God bless the People's Republic of New York.
Fools.
Chris
:) > You say "what about the people living in the apartment?"
:) > Well, if the demand ofr apartments dried up,
:) Pigs will fly first. Guaranteed.
Fly? Could be. It seems they're now capable of posting
usenet articles. I guess anything is possible.
:) > then just maybe rents would come down a little,
:) Pigs will provide in-flight meals first. Guaranteed.
Maybe if you educate the pigs on economics they'll be
able to provide quality inexpensive meals during the
in-flight movie.
:) Get real.
Indeed.
*selah*
:A...@ix.netcom.com> <IfKAzI5J...@interactive.net>
<330190...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks> <E5IFB...@news.interactive.net>
Distribution:
Rent control and rent stabilization has been in place since WWII. No one
has been forced to buy a rent stabilized building. People who buy these
buildings know exactly what they are getting.
Mary
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general *selah* <so...@smtp.dorsai.org> wrote:
:) :A...@ix.netcom.com> <IfKAzI5J...@interactive.net>
:) <330190...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks> <E5IFB...@news.interactive.net>
:) Distribution:
:) Rent control and rent stabilization has been in place since WWII. No one
:) has been forced to buy a rent stabilized building. People who buy these
:) buildings know exactly what they are getting.
So if I move into a crime ridden neighborhood and I get mugged, I
deserve what I get, eh? I have no right to expect things to improve?
What about the folks who owned buildings that were non-rent controlled
before WWII and then were blessed with this law that trounces their
property rights?
Unknown
Great!
What better way to send you pinkos back to Minnesota?
--
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bioengineer-Financier, NYC
Bach-Mozart ReaganQuayleGramm Evrytano-Kastorian Cit:MarquisWhWFinanc&Indus
vjp2@{MCIMail.Com|CompuServe.Com|Dorsai.Org}, http://WWW.Dorsai.Org/~vjp2
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
Alex Rodriguez
In article <E5J0y...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net says...
>So if I move into a crime ridden neighborhood and I get mugged, I
>deserve what I get, eh? I have no right to expect things to improve?
That's not the same. Improving the neighborhood makes it better for everyone.
Dropping rent control does not benefit everyone.
>What about the folks who owned buildings that were non-rent controlled
>before WWII and then were blessed with this law that trounces their
>property rights?
I'm sure the rents were set at what was then a reasonable level. Also when
you buy investment property there is nothing that says you are guaranteed a
profit. It's an investment that may or may not go up in value. You have to
consider that when you buy and bid accordingly. Many of the landlords whining
about rent control are the ones who stupidly overpaid for their properties.
There is nothing wrong with trying to make a profit, but don't expect your
stupidity to be made up by others.
----------------------
Alex __0
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Chris Mauritz was thought to be clueless, then he removed all doubt by
writing:
>
> In nyc.general moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks wrote:
> :) Mark Weinstock wrote:
>
> :) You windows are drafty, your stove barely works, heat...what's that?
> :) Now the landlord dances with glee since old lady Cohen has dropped dead
> :) and he gets control of her apartment.
> :) The landlord guts her apartment, installs new windows and appliances and
> :) rents it for $1,500/mo to some asshole with bucks.
> ^^^^^^^
> My my. A bit envious are we?
You should know that you cannot assume with "ass".
I own my own home, but that does not preclude me from commenting here.
>
> :) You are paying $700/mo for your apartment. Some yuppie scum are conned
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> That confirms it.
Yes, you are clueless.
If you had normal faculties, you could have deduced that my post was
HYPOTHETICAL in response to Mark's hypothetical senario.
>
> If you can't afford to live in a nicer area or a nicer apartment,
> you epect the gummint to effectively tax landlords so that you can
> live there anyway. God bless the People's Republic of New York.
>
> Fools.
Excuse me, "gummint"?
> Chris
>
> :) > You say "what about the people living in the apartment?"
> :) > Well, if the demand ofr apartments dried up,
>
> :) Pigs will fly first. Guaranteed.
>
> Fly? Could be. It seems they're now capable of posting
> usenet articles. I guess anything is possible.
Yes, even you have the right to make a fool of yourself by lamely
attempting to flame.
>
> :) > then just maybe rents would come down a little,
>
> :) Pigs will provide in-flight meals first. Guaranteed.
>
> Maybe if you educate the pigs on economics they'll be
> able to provide quality inexpensive meals during the
> in-flight movie.
>
> :) Get real.
Textbook economics or the real world? Get a life, Chris.
> Indeed.
>
Chris=Clueless
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks wrote:
:) Vasos Panagiotopoulos +1-917-287-8087 Bioengineer-Financier Samani
:) Marions Panyaught NYC-11357-3436-287-USA wrote:
:) >
:) > Great!
:) >
:) > What better way to send you pinkos back to Minnesota?
:) >
:) > --
:) > Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bioengineer-Financier, NYC
:) > Bach-Mozart ReaganQuayleGramm Evrytano-Kastorian Cit:MarquisWhWFinanc&Indus
:) > vjp2@{MCIMail.Com|CompuServe.Com|Dorsai.Org}, http://WWW.Dorsai.Org/~vjp2
:) > ---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
:) Hey Archie Bunker!
:) Go Fuck Yourself!
I think this more or less sums up the intellectual capacity of
moonman.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
*selah* wrote:
>
> :A...@ix.netcom.com> <IfKAzI5J...@interactive.net>
> <330190...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks> <E5IFB...@news.interactive.net>
> Distribution:
>
>
THREE CHEERS FOR YOU, MARY!
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> In nyc.general *selah* <so...@smtp.dorsai.org> wrote:
> :) :A...@ix.netcom.com> <IfKAzI5J...@interactive.net>
> :) <330190...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks> <E5IFB...@news.interactive.net>
> :) Distribution:
>
> :) has been forced to buy a rent stabilized building. People who buy these
> :) buildings know exactly what they are getting.
>
> So if I move into a crime ridden neighborhood and I get mugged, I
> deserve what I get, eh? I have no right to expect things to improve?
> before WWII and then were blessed with this law that trounces their
> property rights?
>
Most of them are dead.
BTW, is this some sort of family problem you have?
Inherit a building with a bunch of old-timers who don't (in your
opinion) pay enough?
Come clean Chris, tell us you sad <sniff> story of "undermaximized
return" or how your family is "burdened" with property.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
> In article <E5J0y...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net says...
> >deserve what I get, eh? I have no right to expect things to improve?
>
> Dropping rent control does not benefit everyone.
>
> >before WWII and then were blessed with this law that trounces their
> >property rights?
>
> you buy investment property there is nothing that says you are guaranteed a
> profit. It's an investment that may or may not go up in value. You have to
> consider that when you buy and bid accordingly. Many of the landlords whining
> about rent control are the ones who stupidly overpaid for their properties.
> There is nothing wrong with trying to make a profit, but don't expect your
> stupidity to be made up by others.
>
> ----------------------
> Alex __0
> _-\<,_
> (_)/ (_)
Another voice of reason. Thank you for your comments.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
>
> Great!
>
> What better way to send you pinkos back to Minnesota?
>
> Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bioengineer-Financier, NYC
Hey Archie Bunker!
Go Fuck Yourself!
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general Alex Rodriguez <ad...@columbia.edu> wrote:
:) In article <E5J0y...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net says...
:) >So if I move into a crime ridden neighborhood and I get mugged, I
:) >deserve what I get, eh? I have no right to expect things to improve?
:) That's not the same. Improving the neighborhood makes it better for everyone.
:) Dropping rent control does not benefit everyone.
But it does penalize people from making the best use of *their*
property. If the government wants to artificially lower rents
they should pay for it themselves instead of forcing property
owners to shoulder the burden.
:) >What about the folks who owned buildings that were non-rent controlled
:) >before WWII and then were blessed with this law that trounces their
:) >property rights?
:) I'm sure the rents were set at what was then a reasonable level. Also when
Well they're apparently not reasonable anymore. Note the "rich" folks
that are perfectly willing to shell out several thousand dollars in
"finders fees" for $500/month rent-controlled apartments in fashionable
areas of the city. So instead of the owners of the property benefitting
from the use of their property, market distortions create an artificial
industry of leeches who earn their living by helping those same folks
with money beat out poor folk for that cheap apartment. And in crummy
areas it's a moot point since those bad ol' rich folk don't want to
live there anyway, thuse allowing market forces to keep rents low.
:) you buy investment property there is nothing that says you are guaranteed a
:) profit. It's an investment that may or may not go up in value. You have to
:) consider that when you buy and bid accordingly. Many of the landlords whining
:) about rent control are the ones who stupidly overpaid for their properties.
:) There is nothing wrong with trying to make a profit, but don't expect your
:) stupidity to be made up by others.
Sure. And those landlords then abandon the property or refuse to
maintain it (since they then lose more money) and the end result
is even less housing. Very clever indeed.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Chris Mauritz once again prove that he is clueless, he just had to
write:
> As he/she should. It *is* their property. If I have a collectible
> car that is worth $20k in NYC because it's "in vogue" and worth only
> $10k anywhere else, I still have the right to sell it for $20k here
> if someone is willing to pay that. It's called free enterprise.
>
> Chris
That Yugo of yours ain't worth shit.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Bill Kolstad wrote:
>This is an issue of greed pure and simple.
> --
> Bill Kolstad
> email: sta...@exit109.com
I belive they call it "maximizing revenue".
It sounds much nicer than "greedy-scumsucking-soulless-troll"
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks wrote:
:) Chris Mauritz once again prove that he is clueless, he just had to
:) write:
:) > As he/she should. It *is* their property. If I have a collectible
:) > car that is worth $20k in NYC because it's "in vogue" and worth only
:) > $10k anywhere else, I still have the right to sell it for $20k here
:) > if someone is willing to pay that. It's called free enterprise.
:) >
:) > Chris
:) That Yugo of yours ain't worth shit.
More mental masturbation from someone without any facts to
back their claims.
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks wrote:
:) Chris Mauritz wrote:
:) >
:) > In nyc.general *selah* <so...@smtp.dorsai.org> wrote:
:) > :) :A...@ix.netcom.com> <IfKAzI5J...@interactive.net>
:) > :) <330190...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks> <E5IFB...@news.interactive.net>
:) > :) Distribution:
:) >
:) > :) Rent control and rent stabilization has been in place since WWII. No one
:) > :) has been forced to buy a rent stabilized building. People who buy these
:) > :) buildings know exactly what they are getting.
:) >
:) > deserve what I get, eh? I have no right to expect things to improve?
:) > before WWII and then were blessed with this law that trounces their
:) > property rights?
:) >
:) Most of them are dead.
So what about their heirs?
:) BTW, is this some sort of family problem you have?
Nope. I wouldn't own property in the city because of this
silliness.
:) Come clean Chris, tell us you sad <sniff> story of "undermaximized
:) return" or how your family is "burdened" with property.
I'm only burdened by fools who think foolhardy social engineering
will influence basic tenets of economic theory.
*shrug*
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> Tony Miller (comput...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : Then move somewhere else. You don't have a *right* to live in a
> : certain area. And I submit that your problem is envy, pure and
> : simple.
>
> It's a combination of envy, misguided social engineering,
> and faulty economic theory. :)
>
> Price controls in general, and rent control in particular
> simply doesn't work.
>
who would be homeless if was abolished.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> Tony Miller (comput...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : Then move somewhere else. You don't have a *right* to live in a
> : certain area. And I submit that your problem is envy, pure and
> : simple.
>
> It's a combination of envy, misguided social engineering,
> and faulty economic theory. :)
>
> Price controls in general, and rent control in particular
> simply doesn't work.
>
There are no guarantees of profit in a free enterprise system.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
> >>free market value of your house is $300,000, but the town in which you live
> >>forces you to say to a seller, "You know what? I know this house is worth
> >>$300,00, but I'm going to sell it to you for $150,000." That's essentially
> >>what Rent Control does.
>
> >transferring ownership. In the case of rent you still retain ownership.
> >You are charging for use and what rent control is doing is insuring
> >against a person charging more for use than is fair.
>
> What is fair is whatever the market can bear. If you can't afford to
> rent an apartment in a certain place, don't live there. If enough
> people can't afford apartments, they will remain vacant, and the price
> will come down. That is the essence of the free market.
The landlords merely write off the unrented apartments as a loss. Great
for tax purposes.
>
> >>Another example... I'm a computer programmer. I want to work for a company.
> >>The company is willing to pay me $100,000 a year, but the city in which I
> >>live says that computer programmers can't make more than $50,000 a year, or
> >>15% above what they were making at their last job.
>
> >This example doesn't hold water.
>
> Of course it does. Explain why you think it doesn't? You are selling
> a service (the right to live in an apartment, and the maintenance on
> said dwelling), How can you in good concience limit the amount of
> money someone can make on their enterprise unless you are a socialist?
How can you in good concience guarantee a profit unless you are a
socialist?
>
> >>The first example is about property. The second is about income. Both
> >>relate to renting out apartments. Do you really think either of these is a
> >>reasonable course of action for a city?
> >>
> >But renting is not selling. And protecting the rights of tenants is as
> >important as protecting the rights of the owners.
>
> No, renting is supplying a service. And tenants shouldn't have any
> *rights* outside what is spelled out in thier rental agreement. (And
> basic zoning and health codes).
Have you read a rental agreement lately? Tennants basically have no
rights.
>
> >>You say "what about the people living in the apartment?" Well, if the demand
> >>ofr apartments dried up, then just maybe rents would come down a little,
> >>and they could afford something else... Rent control essentially forces a
> >>shortage of apartments, and increases the price of non-rent controlled apts.
> >>
> >That is a bogus claim. What do you suggest, people live someplace other
> >than apartments they can afford? If rent control ends all rents will
> >raise up to the levels where many of the people living in them can not
> >afford them. Then what, huh? They all move to somewhere cheaper, what a
> >joke. There won't be anywhere cheaper within the area. Why do you think
> >there is such demand for apartments, because there aren't any cheaper
> >places to live. So we should all just stop desiring a place to live so
> >the owners can profit even more. Or maybe we should all just move away
> >from our places of work and life. This is an issue of greed pure and
> >simple.
>
> Then move somewhere else. You don't have a *right* to live in a
> certain area. And I submit that your problem is envy, pure and
> simple.
>
> --
> URL: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2610
>
> My opinion and 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee...
Hey Valley-Boy, don't choke on your silver spoon.
You probably never lived in NY. You wouldn't last a day here.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Marc Stager wrote:
>
> (4) That's theory. In the real world, rents would go up, way up, and
> stay there. Remember when inflation was near 20% and New York State
> had a usury law limiting credit cards to a maximium of 12% interest?
> Citibank threatened to move its credit card division to South Dakota
> if those laws weren't repealed. They were repealed but it was too late,
> they moved and raised credit card rates to over 20%.
> Now inflation is almost zero, Citibank pays 1.5 % on its Savings
> accounts but do you think their credit cards are any lower?
> Annual percentage rate on Visa: 16.8, cash advances: 19.8%. Same thing
> would happen with rents. Proterty values would rise and fall, but
> uncontrolled rents would remain sky high in New York.
> The streets would be teeming homeless.
> _____________________________________________________________ Marc
> Stager
Nice point there!
Lets see now, we have the landlords crying about losing money, yet they
won't open their books.
So they say "remove the rent controls and MAYBE the rents will go down".
They must be following the wise economist who said something about
"most of the people most of the time."
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Mark Weinstock wrote:
>
> I don't doubt that most people living in rent controlled apartments can't
> pay what te curent free market value of their apartment is. All I'm
> suggesting is that they don't need to live where they do. There are
> significant advantages to living outside of NYC, among them lower housing
> costs, and lower taxes. The commute to, say the wall street are (just as an
> exmple) from union City in NJ is not that much worse than the commute from
> the upper east side.
>
Sorry, Mrs Eisner, you HAVE to move out of your apartment. No I don't
know where you can go, but if you can't affornd the new rent you can try
Altoona. Say what? You don't have any family there? Not my falut.
Nothing personal Mrs Eisner, just the free market at work. No, they
don't have mass transit there, you have to buy a car and buy insurance
to get around.
> So saying get a job with a company rather than the gov't is like saying,
> rent to someone who wil pay you more than the rent controlled amount.
> That's illegal.
And its done every day here in NYC>
> I don' mean to be callous, but... If you can't afford to live somewhere,
> you shouldn't live there. I understand housing is a basic need. But does
> the gov't force Food Emporium to charge less in some areas? No.. The free
> market system works. If people can't afford the rents that a landlord wants
> to charge, he won't be able to rent his apt. So he'll lower his rent.
Cite all of here ONE EXAMPLE.
>
> But look at mortgage and other loan rates. You can't compare credit card
> and savings account rates, since they're not handled at the same level.
Citibank is Citibank is Citibank. All the same.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> In nyc.general moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks wrote:
> :) Chris Mauritz wrote:
> :) >
> :) > In nyc.general *selah* <so...@smtp.dorsai.org> wrote:
> :) > :) :A...@ix.netcom.com> <IfKAzI5J...@interactive.net>
> :) > :) <330190...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks> <E5IFB...@news.interactive.net>
> :) > :) Distribution:
> :) >
> :) > :) Rent control and rent stabilization has been in place since WWII. No one
> :) > :) has been forced to buy a rent stabilized building. People who buy these
> :) > :) buildings know exactly what they are getting.
> :) >
> :) > So if I move into a crime ridden neighborhood and I get mugged, I
> :) > deserve what I get, eh? I have no right to expect things to improve?
> :) > What about the folks who owned buildings that were non-rent controlled
> :) > before WWII and then were blessed with this law that trounces their
> :) > property rights?
> :) >
> :) > Chris
>
> :) Most of them are dead.
>
> So what about their heirs?
What about them?
The heirs should understand that "in a free market" they could lose
money if they try to manage the property.
The property comes with obligations, both legal and moral.
No property (with tennants) should just be looked at as a cash cow.
(Lesse now....16 units@ $500/mo = quit the day job)
The hiers are free to sell the property. Too bad if they can't get thier
price, that "free market thing" again.
NOBODY has to be saddled with property that is "unprofitable". Sell it,
take what you can get, be happy you got it.
> :) BTW, is this some sort of family problem you have?
>
> Nope. I wouldn't own property in the city because of this
> silliness.
Funny, I LOVE owning my home in Queens. Only $1,200/year in property
taxes. My friends in Jersey pay $6,000-9,000/year each in TAXES. Plus
they have to own/maintain/insure two cars. So much for the argument that
"its cheaper outside NY"
>
> :) Come clean Chris, tell us you sad <sniff> story of "undermaximized
> :) return" or how your family is "burdened" with property.
>
> I'm only burdened by fools who think foolhardy social engineering
> will influence basic tenets of economic theory.
>
> *shrug*
>
I think you have it backward, its the foolhardy who think that "basic
tenets of economic theory" will influence society.
Greed is just that, Greed.
You can see crybaby landlords at the Rent Control Hearings but you can
never see thier books open for audit.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> In nyc.general moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks wrote:
> :) Marions Panyaught NYC-11357-3436-287-USA wrote:
> :) >
> :) > Great!
> :) >
> :) > What better way to send you pinkos back to Minnesota?
> :) >
> :) > --
> :) > Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bioengineer-Financier, NYC
> :) > Bach-Mozart ReaganQuayleGramm Evrytano-Kastorian Cit:MarquisWhWFinanc&Indus
> :) > vjp2@{MCIMail.Com|CompuServe.Com|Dorsai.Org}, http://WWW.Dorsai.Org/~vjp2
> :) > ---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
>
> :) Hey Archie Bunker!
>
> :) Go Fuck Yourself!
>
> I think this more or less sums up the intellectual capacity of
> moonman.
>
> Chris
I think this means that Chris approves of the use of the word "Pinkos".
What other hate words do you approve of son?
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> In nyc.general moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks wrote:
> :) write:
>
> :) > As he/she should. It *is* their property. If I have a collectible
> :) > car that is worth $20k in NYC because it's "in vogue" and worth only
> :) > $10k anywhere else, I still have the right to sell it for $20k here
> :) > if someone is willing to pay that. It's called free enterprise.
> :) >
> :) > Chris
>
> :) That Yugo of yours ain't worth shit.
>
> More mental masturbation from someone without any facts to
> back their claims.
>
> Chris
Have yet to see fact #1 in any of your posts. Spouting mantra from
economic texts that were written before you were born is not providing
FACTS.
BTW we are still waiting for you to provide the name of A SINGLE LANDORD
who has willingly (thats without a court order) LOWERED HIS RENTS!
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> Sure. And those landlords then abandon the property or refuse to
> maintain it (since they then lose more money) and the end result
> is even less housing. Very clever indeed.
They could have sold it.
Abandoning a buliding is not like abandoning a Yugo.
But both are illegal.
Alex Rodriguez
In article <E5Jvr...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net says...
>
>In nyc.general Alex Rodriguez <ad...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>:) In article <E5J0y...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net
says...
>:) >deserve what I get, eh? I have no right to expect things to improve?
>
everyone.
>:) Dropping rent control does not benefit everyone.
>
>But it does penalize people from making the best use of *their*
>property. If the government wants to artificially lower rents
>they should pay for it themselves instead of forcing property
>owners to shoulder the burden.
Dropping rent control might benefit everyone in the long run. The problem is
that in the short run you are going to screw over alot of poor people who
can't afford to pay current open market rents. They are the people who stayed
in their neighborhoods and made sure they were a decent place to live. Now you
have all these new folks who want to move in and push out the people who made
the neigborhood attractive to them in the first place. The landlords knew
what they were getting when they bought the property, stop whinning. That's
like whining about property taxes and expecting the government to stop
collecting them because it is forcing the owner to shoulder a burden. The
purchaser knew they had to pay taxes when they bought the place so they
shouldn't expect them to disappear afterwards.
>:) >What about the folks who owned buildings that were non-rent controlled
>:) >before WWII and then were blessed with this law that trounces their
>:) >property rights?
>
>:) I'm sure the rents were set at what was then a reasonable level. Also when
>
>Well they're apparently not reasonable anymore. Note the "rich" folks
>that are perfectly willing to shell out several thousand dollars in
>"finders fees" for $500/month rent-controlled apartments in fashionable
>areas of the city. So instead of the owners of the property benefitting
>from the use of their property, market distortions create an artificial
>industry of leeches who earn their living by helping those same folks
>with money beat out poor folk for that cheap apartment. And in crummy
>areas it's a moot point since those bad ol' rich folk don't want to
>live there anyway, thuse allowing market forces to keep rents low.
No they aren't reasonable anymore, but the rents have gone up quite steadily
since then. They are more than reasonable if you weren't stupid and overpaid
for a building when you bought it. If you've seen what a real estate agent
charges to find and apartment you would know that $500 is a cheap finders fee.
>
>:) you buy investment property there is nothing that says you are guaranteed a
>:) profit. It's an investment that may or may not go up in value. You have
to
>:) consider that when you buy and bid accordingly. Many of the landlords
whining
>:) about rent control are the ones who stupidly overpaid for their properties.
>:) There is nothing wrong with trying to make a profit, but don't expect your
>:) stupidity to be made up by others.
>
>Sure. And those landlords then abandon the property or refuse to
>maintain it (since they then lose more money) and the end result
>is even less housing. Very clever indeed.
They are only abandoning the properties that are in lousy neighborhoods. The
very ones you said most people don't want to live in anyway, so there probably
is no shortage of housing in those areas. Like I said, if you overpay for a
property don't expect to make everyone else pay more for your mistakes.
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general Cyrus Afzali <caf...@interport.net> wrote:
:) On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 02:50:53 GMT, ri...@onyx.interactive.net (Chris
:) Mauritz) wrote:
:) >In nyc.general Marc Stager <sso...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:) >:) Chris Mauritz wrote:
:) >
:) >
:) >Last I checked, people had feet. They have choices about where
:) >to work and live. If you can't afford to live in an area without
:) >rent control, move into an area where you can.
:) Did you ever stop to think about what would happen to the economic
:) well being of a city if no one except the upper class could afford to
:) live there?
Yep, people would leave until the supply of apartments and demand
for same equalized. Though I suspect in NYC's case, people would
have more incentive to come to the city since it would increase
the overall supply of rentable apartments.
:) Sure, there are many areas of the city that are cheaper to live in,
:) but if all rent controls were abolished, people would be forced to
:) leave their rent stabilized apartments and flock to the more
:) affordable areas.
Oh my god! You mean they'd have to live within their means? Heavens
no!
:) You won't see much affordable housing being built these days, so the
:) supply that's here would soon dry up if there was no form of
:) stabilization. Landlords will forever win because the law of supply
:) and demand will be on their side.
How so? If nobody can afford the rent, the landlord either lowers
it or goes out of business.
Chris Mauritz
:) >
:) >In nyc.general Alex Rodriguez <ad...@columbia.edu> wrote:
:) >:) In article <E5J0y...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net
:) says...
:) >:) >So if I move into a crime ridden neighborhood and I get mugged, I
:) >:) >deserve what I get, eh? I have no right to expect things to improve?
:) >
:) >:) That's not the same. Improving the neighborhood makes it better for
:) everyone.
:) >:) Dropping rent control does not benefit everyone.
:) >
:) >But it does penalize people from making the best use of *their*
:) >property. If the government wants to artificially lower rents
:) >they should pay for it themselves instead of forcing property
:) >owners to shoulder the burden.
:) Dropping rent control might benefit everyone in the long run. The problem is
:) that in the short run you are going to screw over alot of poor people who
:) can't afford to pay current open market rents. They are the people who stayed
:) in their neighborhoods and made sure they were a decent place to live. Now you
:) have all these new folks who want to move in and push out the people who made
:) the neigborhood attractive to them in the first place. The landlords knew
:) what they were getting when they bought the property, stop whinning. That's
:) like whining about property taxes and expecting the government to stop
:) collecting them because it is forcing the owner to shoulder a burden. The
:) purchaser knew they had to pay taxes when they bought the place so they
:) shouldn't expect them to disappear afterwards.
Then the government should shoulder the burden of relocating and/or
subsidizing housing for those folks, rather than private land owners.
:) since then. They are more than reasonable if you weren't stupid and overpaid
:) for a building when you bought it. If you've seen what a real estate agent
:) charges to find and apartment you would know that $500 is a cheap finders fee.
And why do you think there is a need for these real estate agents to
ferret out cheap apartments? Cuz rent control is effectively encouraging
the "hoarding" of apartments in desirable areas. Try visiting a city
without rent control. You'll notice that the high priced apartment
brokers are out of work.
Alex Rodriguez
In article <E5L1K...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net says...
Why? rent control was in effect when most of the current landlords bought
their buildings, why should they expect it to change. They should have
accounted for that when they bought the property. When you say the government
you mean us the taxpayers. Why should we pay for the benefit of some stupid
investor who did not know any better than to buy an overpriced property.
It was simply stupid investing if you can't manage your property and make a
profit. I'm sure you will find that long term land ownders are the ones who
aren't whining because they can make a profit on their buildings. Of course
if the laws do get changed it benefits them too since it means their profits
will go even higher.
>:) since then. They are more than reasonable if you weren't stupid and
overpaid
>:) for a building when you bought it. If you've seen what a real estate agent
>:) charges to find and apartment you would know that $500 is a cheap finders
fee.
>
>And why do you think there is a need for these real estate agents to
>ferret out cheap apartments? Cuz rent control is effectively encouraging
>the "hoarding" of apartments in desirable areas. Try visiting a city
>without rent control. You'll notice that the high priced apartment
>brokers are out of work.
last time I looked real estate agents weren't ferreting any cheap apartments.
They only were renting market rate apartments. It is true that there are some
people who are abusing the system, but the majority are not. NYC is not just
any city so you can't compare it to other citys. What do you mean by "hoarding
apartments"?
Alex Rodriguez
In article <XK4AzI5J...@interactive.net>, wo...@interactive.net says...
>And... if the landlord can't justify renovations on your apartment with
>increases in rent, why should he do any? i'm not talking about the obvious
>safety fixes, but some things are just too expensive for the landlord to
>just absorb without a rent increase.
Lets talk about those "renovations" . The landlord is allowed by law to
recoup his cost of improvements in 40 months. After that all of the money
is pure profit. What landlords do is they hire any lousy contractor to
do the "renovations". The contractor then hires some unskilled labor to do
the work for him. They do shoddy work with inferior materials. The landlord
doesn't care how bad the work the contractor did as long as it holds out for
5 years, no longer. That way he can "renovate" again and up the rent again.
>>The "Fair Market Rent" for your crummy, drafty apartment just went up to
>>$1,5000/mo????
>
>No, the fair market value for a renovated aprtment in your building went up.
Yeah, "renovated".
>Learn some economics... And you might want to see someone about that Chip.
>It might be weighing you down more than you know.
since the current system has been around for so long it is going to be very
difficult to change the system with out hurting alot of poor people.
Alex Rodriguez
In article <E5Dr8...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net says...
>As he/she should. It *is* their property. If I have a collectible
>car that is worth $20k in NYC because it's "in vogue" and worth only
>$10k anywhere else, I still have the right to sell it for $20k here
>if someone is willing to pay that. It's called free enterprise.
Sure sell it. But if the law says you can't sell it for more than $12k, then
your car really isn't worth $20K anymore. It's worth what you are allowed to
sell it for. Now if you bought your $10k car for $15k expecting to sell it in
NYC for $20k even though you know the laws would not permit it, who is to
blame? A smart buyer would know that the cars is only worth $12k and would
not have paid $15k for the car.
--
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
Mark Weinstock wrote:
>
> In article <330301...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks>,
> moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks said something like:
> >Tony Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Another example... I'm a computer programmer. I want to work for a company.
> >> >>The company is willing to pay me $100,000 a year, but the city in which I
> >> >>live says that computer programmers can't make more than $50,000 a year, or
> >> >>15% above what they were making at their last job.
> >>
> >> >This example doesn't hold water.
> >>
> >> Of course it does. Explain why you think it doesn't? You are selling
> >> a service (the right to live in an apartment, and the maintenance on
> >> said dwelling), How can you in good concience limit the amount of
> >> money someone can make on their enterprise unless you are a socialist?
> >
> >How can you in good concience guarantee a profit unless you are a
> >socialist?
>
> potential profit is not the way business is normally done in the US, except
> in some VERY extreme cases.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >>The first example is about property. The second is about income. Both
> >> >>relate to renting out apartments. Do you really think either of these is a
> >> >>reasonable course of action for a city?
> >> >>
> >> >But renting is not selling. And protecting the rights of tenants is as
> >> >important as protecting the rights of the owners.
> >>
> >> No, renting is supplying a service. And tenants shouldn't have any
> >> *rights* outside what is spelled out in thier rental agreement. (And
> >> basic zoning and health codes).
> >
> >Have you read a rental agreement lately? Tennants basically have no
> >rights.
>
> have to move to the midwest for more reasonable rents. Just move across a
> river.
That's exactly what I did. ;-)
Daniel A. Weiss
> You say "what about the people living in the apartment?" Well, if the demand
> ofr apartments dried up, then just maybe rents would come down a little,
> and they could afford something else... Rent control essentially forces a
> shortage of apartments, and increases the price of non-rent controlled apts.
>
This is nonsense. In the 70's rents were decontrolled. Landlords got
real greedy real quick, doulbling and tripling rents. It was such a
disaster that the Republican regime in control at the time quickly
restored the controls. The same will happen this time. And living in
Manhattan, I know a bit about the neighborhood folk. Many won't
relocate. They'll just cram more people into their apartments and spend
less money. That'll be just great for the local economy.
Dan
*selah*
: ri...@onyx.interactive.net (Chris Mauritz) wrote:
: >In nyc.general *selah* <so...@smtp.dorsai.org> wrote:
: >:) :A...@ix.netcom.com> <IfKAzI5J...@interactive.net>
: >:) Rent control and rent stabilization has been in place since WWII. No one
: >:) has been forced to buy a rent stabilized building. People who buy these
: >:) buildings know exactly what they are getting.
: >
: >So if I move into a crime ridden neighborhood and I get mugged, I
: >deserve what I get, eh? I have no right to expect things to improve?
The two situations are not comparable.
The large majority of property owners in Manhattan own a number of
buildings and are making plenty of money. They are guaranteed rent
increases every year and most of them overcharge on apts. that were
renovated. Let them open their books to show hardship. They won't do
it.
Like I said, buying a rent regulated building was their *choice*. They
could've chosen some other way to make money.
Mary
Chris Mauritz
:) >As he/she should. It *is* their property. If I have a collectible
:) >car that is worth $20k in NYC because it's "in vogue" and worth only
:) >$10k anywhere else, I still have the right to sell it for $20k here
:) >if someone is willing to pay that. It's called free enterprise.
:) Sure sell it. But if the law says you can't sell it for more than $12k, then
:) your car really isn't worth $20K anymore. It's worth what you are allowed to
Then I submit that my property rights have been violated. The car
is worth what the market will pay for it, not what some city functionary
decides it should be worth.
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general Bill Kolstad <sta...@hiway1.exit109.com> wrote:
:) ri...@onyx.interactive.net (Chris Mauritz) wrote:
:) >In nyc.general *selah* <so...@smtp.dorsai.org> wrote:
:) >:) :A...@ix.netcom.com> <IfKAzI5J...@interactive.net>
:) >:) <330190...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks> <E5IFB...@news.interactive.net>
:) >:) Distribution:
:) >
:) >:) has been forced to buy a rent stabilized building. People who buy these
:) >:) buildings know exactly what they are getting.
:) >
:) >So if I move into a crime ridden neighborhood and I get mugged, I
:) >deserve what I get, eh? I have no right to expect things to improve?
:) No, you don't deserve it, but you should have been better prepared for it.
:) Buyer beware and all. You have no right to expect things to improve if
:) you don't work towards that end. If you expect improvement, do something
:) to improve it.
As I'm sure property owners are doing something to have rent-control
abolished.
:) >What about the folks who owned buildings that were non-rent controlled
:) >before WWII and then were blessed with this law that trounces their
:) >property rights?
:) >
:) Do you have any proof that these people didn't do well under that
:) arrangement? It seems as if they enjoyed a steady source of predictable
:) income, which is better than most people do.
Why do they have to prove anything? They should be able to market
their services at market rates.
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Chris Mauritz (maur...@spcunb.spc.edu) wrote:
: Price controls in general, and rent control in particular
: simply doesn't work.
You mean, it doesn't work for landlords. It works okay for
me.
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Chris Mauritz (ri...@onyx.interactive.net) wrote:
: So if I move into a crime ridden neighborhood and I get mugged, I
: deserve what I get, eh? I have no right to expect things to improve?
: What about the folks who owned buildings that were non-rent controlled
: before WWII and then were blessed with this law that trounces their
: property rights?
Rent *controlled* buildings occupy a very small percentage of the NYC
housing stock. There is a tendency to trot out extreme strawman
examples, like the rare CPW penthouse renting for $500/month, but
the fact is that most rent-controlled apartments reside in very
funky neighborhoods where there's not much difference between
non-controlled and controlled rents.
I think the original comment was on target: if you buy a property
knowing that it is presently encumbered by rent laws which will
limit its income potential you have no grounds to gripe about it
later. If you bought land in a peaceful, residentially-zoned
community, would you be torqued because the town wouldn't let you
exercise your "property rights" and build a race track so you could
maximize your profits?
-----------------------[ http://www.magpie.com ]-----------=o&>o---------
Steve Manes | Int'l Bass Players | for info, email
ma...@magpie.com | NYC Motorcyclists | ser...@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
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general Steve...@see.sig.for.address wrote:
:) Chris Mauritz (maur...@spcunb.spc.edu) wrote:
:) : Price controls in general, and rent control in particular
:) : simply doesn't work.
:) You mean, it doesn't work for landlords. It works okay for
:) me.
I love it when the pro-rent-control folks try to circle the wagons
and paint anyone who questions their position as a "friend to the
landlords." I don't know any NYC landlords anymore, nor do I have
any interest in doing so. I speak as someone who has rented in
the city and who has studied economics and business.
You'd think that if the landlords were such a rich/powerful
group, they'd band together and have rent control repealed
in the NYC rent-a-politician system.
I'd be happy to hear any proof that you'd like to offer
that rent control offers any kind of housing assistance
at all.
The other amusing argument is "make the landlords open their
books to justify their claims." Fine. Make the restaurants,
the gas stations, the hardware stores, etc. do the same.
*shrug*
Alex Rodriguez
In article <E5Mzt...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net says...
>Why do they have to prove anything? They should be able to market
>their services at market rates.
They have to prove it because they bought the buildings with rent control
already in place. Rent control is supposed to be fair for both the landlords
and tenants. If the landlords say they are not making money, they should be
able to show this. If they want to change the law, they should show a good
reason for this. The market is regulated, they knew that when they bought
the building. So what they are getting is market rates for a rent regulated
apartment. They should stop whinning!
Alex Rodriguez
In article <E5Mzq...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net says...
>
>In nyc.general Alex Rodriguez <ad...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>:) In article <E5Dr8...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net
says...
>
>:) >As he/she should. It *is* their property. If I have a collectible
>:) >car that is worth $20k in NYC because it's "in vogue" and worth only
>:) >$10k anywhere else, I still have the right to sell it for $20k here
>:) >if someone is willing to pay that. It's called free enterprise.
>
>:) Sure sell it. But if the law says you can't sell it for more than $12k,
then
>:) your car really isn't worth $20K anymore. It's worth what you are allowed
to
>
>Then I submit that my property rights have been violated. The car
>is worth what the market will pay for it, not what some city functionary
>decides it should be worth.
The car is worth what the market will pay for it. Since the market is
regulated, then its only worth what the regulated market says. It was not
smart of you to buy it for more than what you knew the regulated market
would allow you to resell it for. If you did buy it knowing the conditions,
then you are not a smart business person.
*selah*
:A...@ix.netcom.com> <IfKAzI5J...@interactive.net>
<5dqj03$f...@hiway1.exit109.com> <5dspvi$c...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> <E5I1z...@spcuna.spc.edu> <E5pv0...@magpie.com> <E5qF6...@news.interactive.net>
Distribution:
Chris Mauritz (ri...@onyx.interactive.net) wrote:
: You'd think that if the landlords were such a rich/powerful
: group, they'd band together and have rent control repealed
: in the NYC rent-a-politician system.
They are certainly trying and they've had quite a bit of influence
considering what a minority they are. They've sent money to many
politicians, both Republican and Democrat.
: The other amusing argument is "make the landlords open their
: books to justify their claims." Fine. Make the restaurants,
: the gas stations, the hardware stores, etc. do the same.
We are talking about the possible displacement of a million people from
their homes. It is not a comparable situation to restaurants, etc.
Mary
art almeida
Melodrama, melodrama......we're talking about paying the true cost to live
in NYC..I don't want to see housing subsidized without a means test. You
want housing subsidies, show your tax returns!! Notice there aren't a lot
of tenants who are calling for open books on renters! I would much rather
subsidize education than apartments. Who frankly cares if people can longer
live in cheap apartments in the Village/Soho/Upper EastWest Side. The real
problem in NYC housing is in the outer boroughs and rent controls are
killing small landlords..who, BTW, provide almost all of the housing in
NYC. It's not rent contol which is the problem for small landlords...it's
expenditure control. The price of heating oil went up 25% this year...where
do you think that money comes from? Tenants would like the landlord to pay
for this increase so they can be nice and warm. That they should bear any
of this burden strikes them as extremely unfair. The landlord bought his
building and all his tenants and it's his obligation to keep them warm and
cozy and happy no matter what.And they should pay the same rent for as long
as they are tenants and it doesn't matter if the bolier breaks down, or the
taxes go up or the building systems have to be updated or the price of fuel
rises. No increase for tenants. Bullshit. Hundreds of thousands of tenants
already got displaced from all the abandoned buildings in Brooklyn and the
Bronx. A lot of that abandonment came from the inability of landlords to
make a profit (don't you love that word - it's so American) on their
investments. It made more economic sense to burn a building to the ground
than to rent it. Think about the absurdity that this represents. It costs
money to live in NYC. Lots of it. This is the second most expensive place
on earth and if you choose to live here you better be prepared to pay for
it.
*selah* <so...@smtp.dorsai.org> wrote in article
<5eagan$j...@kensie.dorsai.org>...
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Chris Mauritz (ri...@onyx.interactive.net) wrote:
: :) You mean, it doesn't work for landlords. It works okay for
: :) me.
: I love it when the pro-rent-control folks try to circle the wagons
: and paint anyone who questions their position as a "friend to the
: landlords."
Who's painting? I just said it works fine for me.
: You'd think that if the landlords were such a rich/powerful
: group, they'd band together and have rent control repealed
: in the NYC rent-a-politician system.
You must be joking. Real estate is the most powerful lobby in this
friggin state. I was with Lower Manhattan Loft Tenants when we
battled Albany for years to have loft tenants brought under the
multiple dwelling law. Despite the appeals of Koch and
then-Governor Carey, we couldn't even get the bill out of committee
until Carey offered rich downstate landlords a carrot for their
support: repeal of a surcharge tax on real estate sales over $1
million. What a surprise: the bill sailed through the legislature
the next week with only a handful of objections. Not only did this
more than demonstrate the power of big real estate to control
government at the state level, it also answers your question. Since
most residential loftlords' buildings were worth less than a mil
and few big-buck commercial buildings had any residential loft tenants
Helmsley, et. al. threw small loftlords to the wolves in that deal,
just as they are similarly disinterested in the economic plight
(if there is one... hard to tell since they won't open their books)
of landlords with rent-controlled apartments now. Besides, when
those state rent reg hearings come up there's nothing more compelling
than a juicy anecdote about millionaire stockbrokers living it up
in $500 penthouses to score sympathy points.
: The other amusing argument is "make the landlords open their
: books to justify their claims." Fine. Make the restaurants,
: the gas stations, the hardware stores, etc. do the same.
You mean like Con-Ed, NYNEX, Brooklyn Union Gas and other providers
of essential services are forced to do by the PSC before they're
entitled to arbitrarily raise their rates?
*selah*
art almeida (ar...@bestweb.net) wrote:
: Melodrama, melodrama......we're talking about paying the true cost to live
: in NYC..I don't want to see housing subsidized without a means test. You
: want housing subsidies, show your tax returns!! Notice there aren't a lot
: of tenants who are calling for open books on renters!
I, and many others, would have no problem with this.
[...]
: of this burden strikes them as extremely unfair. The landlord bought his
: building and all his tenants and it's his obligation to keep them warm and
: cozy and happy no matter what.And they should pay the same rent for as long
: as they are tenants and it doesn't matter if the bolier breaks down, or the
: taxes go up or the building systems have to be updated or the price of fuel
: rises. No increase for tenants.
[...]
This is not true. There are increases every year or two, depending on
the length of the lease. A rent of $800 per month goes up to $856 per
month at a 7% rent stab. increase. These increases are guaranteed no
matter what. There are a number of other ways that building owners get
increases including renovations and major capital improvements.
Mary
Chris Mauritz
:) <5dqj03$f...@hiway1.exit109.com> <5dspvi$c...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> <E5I1z...@spcuna.spc.edu> <E5pv0...@magpie.com> <E5qF6...@news.interactive.net>
:) Distribution:
:) Chris Mauritz (ri...@onyx.interactive.net) wrote:
:) : You'd think that if the landlords were such a rich/powerful
:) : group, they'd band together and have rent control repealed
:) : in the NYC rent-a-politician system.
:) They are certainly trying and they've had quite a bit of influence
:) considering what a minority they are. They've sent money to many
:) politicians, both Republican and Democrat.
:)
:) : The other amusing argument is "make the landlords open their
:) : books to justify their claims." Fine. Make the restaurants,
:) : the gas stations, the hardware stores, etc. do the same.
:) We are talking about the possible displacement of a million people from
:) their homes. It is not a comparable situation to restaurants, etc.
Yah right. Where are the million replacement renters who are going
to pay these "astronomical rents" going to come from? And if they
do come, I guess that means the property owners are indeed getting
the shaft.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
art almeida wrote:
>
> Melodrama, melodrama......we're talking about paying the true cost to live
> in NYC..I don't want to see housing subsidized without a means test. You
> want housing subsidies, show your tax returns!
I never had a a problem with that.
>Notice there aren't a lot
> of tenants who are calling for open books on renters!
And none of the landlords have opened thiers!
>I would much rather
> subsidize education than apartments. Who frankly cares if people can longer
> live in cheap apartments in the Village/Soho/Upper EastWest Side. The real
> problem in NYC housing is in the outer boroughs and rent controls are
> killing small landlords..who, BTW, provide almost all of the housing in
> NYC. It's not rent contol which is the problem for small landlords...it's
> expenditure control. The price of heating oil went up 25% this year...where
> do you think that money comes from?
The tennants, who BTW, never get a rebate from the landlord if there is
a mild winter.
>Tenants would like the landlord to pay
> for this increase so they can be nice and warm.
It's not a matter of *liking*, its the law.
>That they should bear any
> of this burden strikes them as extremely unfair.
The *burden* is part of the cost/profit of any property, so what's the
point?
Like I said, tennants never get a rebate from lower-than-expected
expendetures, so why should they have to shell out more for a harsh
winter? I thought we agreed that owning any property has some inherent
risks on return of investment.
> The landlord bought his
> building and all his tenants and it's his obligation to keep them warm and
> cozy and happy no matter what.
Thats the law.
>And they should pay the same rent for as long
> as they are tenants and it doesn't matter if the bolier breaks down, or the
> taxes go up or the building systems have to be updated or the price of fuel
> rises. No increase for tenants. Bullshit.
Get a grip. Nobody in this thread said that rents should never go up.
Resonable increases have to be made. Nobody said the landlords must go
broke.
>Hundreds of thousands of tenants
> already got displaced from all the abandoned buildings in Brooklyn and the
> Bronx. A lot of that abandonment came from the inability of landlords to
> make a profit (don't you love that word - it's so American) on their
> investments. It made more economic sense to burn a building to the ground
> than to rent it. Think about the absurdity that this represents.
A Fortune 500 company lays off 5,000 people and Wall Street rejoices.
The world has become an absurd place <shrug>
>It costs
> money to live in NYC. Lots of it. This is the second most expensive place
> on earth and if you choose to live here you better be prepared to pay for
> it.
>
Every day.
Tony Miller
so...@smtp.dorsai.org (*selah*) wrote:
>: The other amusing argument is "make the landlords open their
>: books to justify their claims." Fine. Make the restaurants,
>: the gas stations, the hardware stores, etc. do the same.
>We are talking about the possible displacement of a million people from
>their homes. It is not a comparable situation to restaurants, etc.
Guess what, Mary. This is the United States (at least outside of
NYC). Having an apartment you want at a price you want isn't a right.
Affordable housing isn't a right, affordable food isn't a right,
affordable health care isn't a right.
I have two rights. The right to keep what I earn, and the right to be
left alone. I voluntarily pay for police and fire and military to
ensure those rights are upheld.
You have no right to what I earn, be it welfare, a rent controlled
apartment or whatever. You have the right to life, liberty and the
*pursuit* of happiness, as I. And taking my money to give it to
someone else interferes with my pursuit of happiness.
--
URL: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2610
PGP Fingerprint: 1024/BD999ED9 - 46A7C0970E45E2F9 09F93601D9092CED
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general Tony Miller <comput...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:) so...@smtp.dorsai.org (*selah*) wrote:
:) >: The other amusing argument is "make the landlords open their
:) >: books to justify their claims." Fine. Make the restaurants,
:) >: the gas stations, the hardware stores, etc. do the same.
:) >We are talking about the possible displacement of a million people from
:) >their homes. It is not a comparable situation to restaurants, etc.
:) Guess what, Mary. This is the United States (at least outside of
:) NYC). Having an apartment you want at a price you want isn't a right.
:) Affordable housing isn't a right, affordable food isn't a right,
:) affordable health care isn't a right.
:) I have two rights. The right to keep what I earn, and the right to be
:) left alone. I voluntarily pay for police and fire and military to
:) ensure those rights are upheld.
:) You have no right to what I earn, be it welfare, a rent controlled
:) apartment or whatever. You have the right to life, liberty and the
:) *pursuit* of happiness, as I. And taking my money to give it to
:) someone else interferes with my pursuit of happiness.
I couldn't agree more. Vote libertarian.
Alex Rodriguez
In article <01bc1d1f$ada51480$8100...@martin.ansremote.com>, ar...@bestweb.net
says...
>
>Melodrama, melodrama......we're talking about paying the true cost to live
>in NYC..I don't want to see housing subsidized without a means test. You
>of tenants who are calling for open books on renters! I would much rather
>subsidize education than apartments. Who frankly cares if people can longer
>live in cheap apartments in the Village/Soho/Upper EastWest Side. The real
>problem in NYC housing is in the outer boroughs and rent controls are
>killing small landlords..who, BTW, provide almost all of the housing in
>NYC. It's not rent contol which is the problem for small landlords...it's
>expenditure control. The price of heating oil went up 25% this year...where
>for this increase so they can be nice and warm. That they should bear any
>of this burden strikes them as extremely unfair. The landlord bought his
>building and all his tenants and it's his obligation to keep them warm and
>as they are tenants and it doesn't matter if the bolier breaks down, or the
>taxes go up or the building systems have to be updated or the price of fuel
>already got displaced from all the abandoned buildings in Brooklyn and the
>Bronx. A lot of that abandonment came from the inability of landlords to
>make a profit (don't you love that word - it's so American) on their
>investments. It made more economic sense to burn a building to the ground
>money to live in NYC. Lots of it. This is the second most expensive place
>on earth and if you choose to live here you better be prepared to pay for
>it.
Being a landlord is like running a business. If you don't have good business
sense, then you are not going to do well. The first and most important part of
buying an existing business is that you don't overpay. None of the items you
mention are unforseeable expenses. When you buy the building you know who is
living in it and what they are paying for rent. You know what your taxes are.
As a smart business man you also should do homework to figure out that the
price of oil cycles up and down every season. The price of oil always goes up
in the winter, just like the price of gasoline always goes up in the summer.
It is pretty easy to guess what the average life of a boiler is too. It all
comes down to doing your homework before you get into the landlord business.
If you screwed up, thats your problem, and unfortunately your tenants too.
Alex Rodriguez
In article <5eciur$h...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
comput...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>so...@smtp.dorsai.org (*selah*) wrote:
>
>>: The other amusing argument is "make the landlords open their
>
>
NYC is in the USA too. Check a map.
>
>I have two rights. The right to keep what I earn, and the right to be
>left alone. I voluntarily pay for police and fire and military to
>ensure those rights are upheld.
Last time I checked it wasn't voluntary. In fact it was mandatory and it
sure costs alot.
>You have no right to what I earn, be it welfare, a rent controlled
>apartment or whatever. You have the right to life, liberty and the
>*pursuit* of happiness, as I. And taking my money to give it to
>someone else interferes with my pursuit of happiness.
You must be living in another country. Since paying taxes is not voluntary
you are paying for alot of things you don't like or agree with. Thats just the
way it is until the laws change.
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Chris Mauritz (ri...@onyx.interactive.net) wrote:
: Yah right. Where are the million replacement renters who are going
: to pay these "astronomical rents" going to come from?
The same place they do now... lots of single professionals doubling
and tripling up in overpriced apartments like college students,
except that people in higher tax brackets who need to live in
Manhattan will have to do the same.
art almeida
Being a landlord is not like running a business in NYC. Do you own rental
property? I don't think so...Buildings are very unpredictable. Any number
of things can go wrong (and do)...it takes money and lots of it to keep a
building going. You may be able to regulate rents but you can't regulate
the prices of roofs, boilers, damage done by indifferent tenants, etc, etc.
In your world, real estate follows some economic model of cost projection
and analysis. It simply doesn't happen like his in the real world. I've
owned some buildings which were dream structures with great tenants where
profit (love that word....my money...my risk....my reward) was possible.
I've owned others which were nightmares where everything went wrong. It's
simply not possible to predict (not project) what will happen. Rent control
attempts to do away with the real world by treating all buildings and all
tenants in the same way. This defies practical and common sense.This puts
landlords in the position of either converting their apartments to coops or
burning them for the insurance money. You can't tell a landlord "tough
shit...you bought it ...you knew it was regulated..now suffer. Landlords
will look to recover their investments and make a profit (there's that word
again) and if they can't make it by renting out apartments then they'll
make it by selling them. Landlords are just like the rest of us...we are
all in NYC for the money. We are all looking for the best possible deal for
the least possible money which will give us the best possible return. New
York is built on this premise....which is why rent control will ultimately
end. Has anybody noticed that almost no rental housing is being built
anymore? There's no money in it.
iguez <ad...@columbia.edu> wrote in article
<5eck8s$mg9$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>...
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Tony Miller (comput...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: You have no right to what I earn, be it welfare, a rent controlled
: apartment or whatever.
How is someone else's rent-controlled apartment taking money out of
your pocket, even abstractly?
Tony Miller
ad...@columbia.edu (Alex Rodriguez) wrote:
>In article <5eciur$h...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
>>Guess what, Mary. This is the United States (at least outside of
>>NYC). Having an apartment you want at a price you want isn't a right.
>>Affordable housing isn't a right, affordable food isn't a right,
>>affordable health care isn't a right.
>NYC is in the USA too. Check a map.
I had thought that it might have been annexed by Russia when I wasn't
looking. But then I remembered that even Russia isn't communist
anymore.
>>I have two rights. The right to keep what I earn, and the right to be
>>left alone. I voluntarily pay for police and fire and military to
>>ensure those rights are upheld.
>Last time I checked it wasn't voluntary. In fact it was mandatory and it
>sure costs alot.
But it's the cost of keeping my freedom. Forced charity doesn't help
my freedom one bit.
>>You have no right to what I earn, be it welfare, a rent controlled
>>apartment or whatever. You have the right to life, liberty and the
>>*pursuit* of happiness, as I. And taking my money to give it to
>>someone else interferes with my pursuit of happiness.
>You must be living in another country. Since paying taxes is not voluntary
>you are paying for alot of things you don't like or agree with. Thats just the
>way it is until the laws change.
That's why I continue to lobby my representatives and vote.
Unfortunately the masses who want their freebies also vote and they
vote based on how much the politicians will take away from me and give
to them. "Whatta country!!!"
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
art almeida (ar...@bestweb.net) wrote:
: Being a landlord is not like running a business in NYC. Do you own rental
: property? I don't think so...Buildings are very unpredictable. Any number
: of things can go wrong (and do)...it takes money and lots of it to keep a
: building going. You may be able to regulate rents but you can't regulate
: the prices of roofs, boilers, damage done by indifferent tenants, etc, etc.
Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that only landlords are the victims
of overhead cost fluctuations? Back to Junior Achievement with you!
Or is your point that landlords, burdened by rent ceilings, can't
increase their prices to compensate for these fluctuations? If so,
that's false. True, a landlord can't arbitrarily bill tenants for
capital improvements to the building but landlords *are* permitted
to surcharge rents for those improvements. My landlord was permitted
to jack up my rent by $100/month eight years ago to compensate him
just for filing residential legalization plans for the building
despite the fact no work has actually been done. When he actually
does the work, he'll be able to amortize every dollar of his
investment in a rent hike to me over ten years, interest included.
: Has anybody noticed that almost no rental housing is being built
: anymore? There's no money in it.
Bullshit. New rental housing built since 1974 is NOT subject to
Stabilization. Only if the landlord volunteers to avail himself of tax
credits and abatements to help finance the construction of new
housing will his units fall under rent controls. Wall Street is
experiencing a boom of building conversions for new rental housing
now. A huge, 30-story rental apartment tower is in the planning
stages for Montague Street in Brooklyn Heights. A couple of new
towers will begin putting up steel in the Union Square area in the
spring. The Lower East Side continues to gentrify eastward with
$1000-1500/month one-bedroom apartments. Even bombed-out Red Hook,
Brooklyn has begun to experience a residential building boom.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamsucks
art almeida wrote:
>
> Being a landlord is not like running a business in NYC.
It most certainly is.
>Do you own rental
> property? I don't think so...Buildings are very unpredictable.
I own my own business. Things are very unpredictable.
>Any number
> of things can go wrong (and do)...it takes money and lots of it to keep a
> building going.
It takes money and lots of it to keep my doors open and staff employed.
>You may be able to regulate rents but you can't regulate
> the prices of roofs, boilers, damage done by indifferent tenants, etc, etc.
I may be able to set prices but I can't regulate my vendors from passing
on increased costs, and I can't forsee the computers going down,
messengers losing packages, etc.
> In your world, real estate follows some economic model of cost projection
> and analysis. It simply doesn't happen like his in the real world.
Er, excuse me, but I think you need a new accountant who can explain
these things to you.
> I've
> owned some buildings which were dream structures with great tenants where
> profit (love that word....my money...my risk....my reward) was possible.
> I've owned others which were nightmares where everything went wrong. It's
> simply not possible to predict (not project) what will happen.
I have some clients who are very profitable to me and others who are
not.
It was/is my choice to accept them and to continue doinng business with
them. Just as it was your coice to buy a building or not. Your engineer
and accountant should have given you a cost/expense report. Of course
there are unforseeable expenses to be expected, and there are
unforseeable windfalls that could come too.
>Rent control
> attempts to do away with the real world by treating all buildings and all
> tenants in the same way. This defies practical and common sense.This puts
> landlords in the position of either converting their apartments to coops or
> burning them for the insurance money.
Not all buildings are rent contolled, you should know that.
> You can't tell a landlord "tough
> shit...you bought it ...you knew it was regulated..now suffer.
Sure you can. If you overpaid for a non-profitable building, thats your
tough luck. You were either misinformed by your engineer and/or
accountant or just palain stupid. Either way, ignorance is no excuse.
>Landlords
> will look to recover their investments and make a profit (there's that word
> again) and if they can't make it by renting out apartments then they'll
> make it by selling them. Landlords are just like the rest of us...we are
> all in NYC for the money. We are all looking for the best possible deal for
> the least possible money which will give us the best possible return. New
> York is built on this premise....which is why rent control will ultimately
> end. Has anybody noticed that almost no rental housing is being built
> anymore? There's no money in it.
So get out the business and quit whining.
Jim Kalb
In <E5u9r...@magpie.com> Steve...@see.sig.for.address writes:
>How is someone else's rent-controlled apartment taking money out of
>your pocket, even abstractly?
Suppose there are 100 apartments, 150 people who want them, a free
rental market, and no new apartments being constructed. Presumably
rents will rise until 1/3 of the people drop out of the market.
Now suppose that 50 of the apartments are rent controlled and occupied
permanently or practically so by 50 of the people. Then on the free
rental market there will be 50 apartments and 100 people who want them,
so rents will rise until 1/2 the people drop out.
Another possibility is that a history of controls on rent and other
burdensome regulations imposed after construction could make investors
demand higher expected payoffs to compensate for risk of unexpected
government action. As a result, less rental housing would be built at
higher prices to consumers.
--
Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Rise, Sir Lapdog! Revolt, lover! God, pal--rise, sir!
Rachel Luxemburg
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:21:58 GMT, wo...@interactive.remove.this.net
(Mark) apparently uttered:
>
>Just out of curiosity, who NEEDS to live in Manhatan? Who cannot possibly
>do their job living in the outer boroughs or NJ? Is there a job or social
>requirement that forces people to live in Manhattan? Assuming you live in a
>two fare zone, commuting costs are about $130/month. The difference in rents
>in the outer boroughs are much greater than this, and this doesn't even
>include the lower cost of living (food, etc...)
>
Believe it or not, some of us were actually born and raised in
Manhattan, and want to keep living in this, our hometown.
BTW, what happened to the idea of BUYING an apartment? These days,
it's cheaper than renting for a lot of folks.
Rachel Luxemburg
rs...@link-net.com
LinkAmerica Internet Services
http://www.link-net.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/PA/O d+@>- s+:-() a C++$ !U--- P+>++ L(--)
!E- W+++$ N++(+)$ o--?>+ K-? w++++()$@ O- M-
!V- PS+ PE++(+) Y>+ PGP(--) t(-) !5-- X++ R-
tv+()@ b+>++ DI+(++)>++++ !D-- G e++ h--- r+++ x+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Mark (wo...@interactive.remove.this.net) wrote:
: Who cannot possibly
: do their job living in the outer boroughs or NJ?
What landlord cannot possibly invest his money in mutual funds or
push carts if he doesn't like the housing laws by which NY has
abided since before most of them were born?
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com) wrote:
: Suppose there are 100 apartments, 150 people who want them, a free
: rental market, and no new apartments being constructed. Presumably
: rents will rise until 1/3 of the people drop out of the market.
: Now suppose that 50 of the apartments are rent controlled and occupied
: permanently or practically so by 50 of the people. Then on the free
: rental market there will be 50 apartments and 100 people who want them,
: so rents will rise until 1/2 the people drop out.
What? Suppose you present a conclusion instead of byzantine what-ifs.
: Another possibility is that a history of controls on rent and other
: burdensome regulations imposed after construction could make investors
: demand higher expected payoffs to compensate for risk of unexpected
: government action.
Let them demand all they want. That's what rent controls are for.
: As a result, less rental housing would be built at higher prices
: to consumers.
With all due respect, there was more construction of new rental
housing in NYC per capita in the last fifteen years than cities,
like Philadelphia, which have no rent control.
Jim Kalb
In <E5y1B...@magpie.com> Steve...@see.sig.for.address writes:
>Suppose you present a conclusion instead of byzantine what-ifs.
You asked how abstractly a result could come about, so what-ifs are
enough. I'm not sure how simple something has to be before you call it
byzantine.
>: Another possibility is that a history of controls on rent and other
>: burdensome regulations imposed after construction could make investors
>: demand higher expected payoffs to compensate for risk of unexpected
>: government action.
>Let them demand all they want. That's what rent controls are for.
As you point out, rent controls don't apply to new housing. Your
question was how rent controls benefiting renter A could cost renter B
money.
>: As a result, less rental housing would be built at higher prices
>: to consumers.
>With all due respect, there was more construction of new rental
>housing in NYC per capita in the last fifteen years than cities, like
>Philadelphia, which have no rent control.
A comprehensive comparison of cities would of course help judge the
applicability of abstract scenarios (which is what you requested) to
the real world. When we discussed this issue several years ago I cited
a scholarly article to you that did so. Your conduct on that occasion
doesn't lead me to believe it would be worth my while to do any digging
on your behalf.
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com) wrote:
: Suppose there are 100 apartments, 150 people who want them, a free
: rental market, and no new apartments being constructed. Presumably
: rents will rise until 1/3 of the people drop out of the market.
A nice euphemism: "drop out of the market". A term with more common
usage though is "evicted", correct?
Jim Kalb
In <E5z6v...@magpie.com> Steve...@see.sig.for.address writes:
>If you're referring to that NY Mag piece against rent control
Actually it was a piece from _The Public Interest_.
Jim Kalb
In <E5z7q...@magpie.com> Steve...@see.sig.for.address writes:
"Stop looking, move out, or stop paying rent and get evicted" would I
suppose be correct. Remember that since demand is 150 and supply 100
1/3 of the people do not presently have apartments and so could not be
evicted. Also, if rent were edging up and eventually became too high
to be worth paying I think most people would find someplace else, New
Jersey or whatever, instead of not paying and waiting to be evicted.
The language I used was briefer, and you don't like complexity. Also
what the 50 would have in common is that they would lose interest in
renting an apartment at the rent demanded and go elsewhere. So "drop
out of the market" seemed accurate as well as brief.
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com) wrote:
: You asked how abstractly a result could come about, so what-ifs are
: enough. I'm not sure how simple something has to be before you call it
: byzantine.
Well, I'll hand that to you; it was certainly abstract. I didn't
understand a word of it.
: A comprehensive comparison of cities would of course help judge the
: applicability of abstract scenarios (which is what you requested) to
: the real world. When we discussed this issue several years ago I cited
: a scholarly article to you that did so.
If you're referring to that NY Mag piece against rent control, I found it
neither "scholarly" nor even honest. It was just a rehash of ACPO's
position statement on rent laws.
: Your conduct on that occasion
: doesn't lead me to believe it would be worth my while to do any digging
: on your behalf.
Let me guess: my conduct was confused and impatient. I wonder why.
Danielle J. Charney
:A...@ix.netcom.com>
Distribution:
Marc Stager (sso...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Chris Mauritz wrote:
:
: re:
: >> Let me start off by saying I'm an educated person who knows a bit
: >> about the business world. But what I don't understand about people who
: >> want to abolish all forms of rent control is how they think it will
: >> work in NYC?
: >>
: >> By that I mean, given the fact that the occupancy rate in the
: >> desirable sections of the city is already very high, doesn't it stand
: >> to reason that a landlord will be able to get most anything he wants
: >> for his property.
: >
: >
: > As he/she should. It *is* their property. If I have a collectible
: > car that is worth $20k in NYC because it's "in vogue" and worth only
: > $10k anywhere else, I still have the right to sell it for $20k here
: > if someone is willing to pay that. It's called free enterprise.
: >
: > Chris
: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
: So, Chris, what are you going to do about the people living
: in your car?
:
: Oh, there's noone living in your car? Then by all means,
: do as you wish. Nobody's getting hurt.
:
: Big difference, right, Chris?
:
: And wouldn't you just love to move your tenement apartment house
: from East New York to Central Park West? Same bricks and mortar
: would fetch 10 times the price.
:
: Not really the same thing, is it, Chris?
:
: You wanna get a million bucks for your gullwing Mercedes?
: Go for it. You wanna destroy peoples' lives? There's a law
: that won't allow you to do that, and it should remain in force.
: ______________________________________________ Marc Stager
i have to second this point; and to all you wishful landlards (not a sp.
error) ask yourselves this BEFORE you think about responding. How many out
there can afford what you wish to sell? simple business... rent control
serves two principles, those who can rent, and those who can rent out. If
you have half a brain, you will understand, if not, buy a builing for 2 -3
million, and try to rent a 500 sq. ft. 1 bedroom for 2K on 90th and 1st.
I'd like to see your excuse to the bank when they forclose!
0.02
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com) wrote:
: The language I used was briefer, and you don't like complexity.
"Drop out of the market" is more brief than "evict"?
: Also
: what the 50 would have in common is that they would lose interest in
: renting an apartment at the rent demanded and go elsewhere.
Yes, but under rent control they can stay right where they are with
their rent indexed by something more fair, like inflation. So tell
me how removing rent control benefits those who are priced out of a
market where there is no competition to keep rents at sane,
affordable levels?
Jim Kalb
In <E612...@magpie.com> Steve...@see.sig.for.address writes:
>: The language I used was briefer, and you don't like complexity.
>"Drop out of the market" is more brief than "evict"?
At this point all I can say (assuming you find my views of any
interest) is reread the message to which you are responding.
>: Also what the 50 would have in common is that they would lose
>: interest in renting an apartment at the rent demanded and go
>: elsewhere.
>Yes, but under rent control they can stay right where they are with
>their rent indexed by something more fair, like inflation.
Remember that there are 150 who want apartments and only 100
apartments, so 50 will have to go elsewhere in any event.
>So tell me how removing rent control benefits those who are priced out
>of a market where there is no competition to keep rents at sane,
>affordable levels?
I don't see why you say "no competition." In the no rent control
situation the owners of 100 apartments are competing against each other
for the 100 out of 150 prospective tenants who will pay the highest
rent. In the rent control situation the owners of 50 apartments are
competing for the 50 out of 100 prospective tenants who will pay the
most. Rents would normally end up at a lower level in the first case.
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general Steve...@see.sig.for.address wrote:
:) Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com) wrote:
:) : The language I used was briefer, and you don't like complexity.
:) "Drop out of the market" is more brief than "evict"?
:) : Also
:) : what the 50 would have in common is that they would lose interest in
:) : renting an apartment at the rent demanded and go elsewhere.
:) Yes, but under rent control they can stay right where they are with
:) their rent indexed by something more fair, like inflation. So tell
:) me how removing rent control benefits those who are priced out of a
:) market where there is no competition to keep rents at sane,
:) affordable levels?
Sane and affordable are in the eyes of the beholder. Market forces
seem better able to handle this than a plodding and corrupt government
bureaucracy.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamenot
Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> Sane and affordable are in the eyes of the beholder. Market forces
> seem better able to handle this than a plodding and corrupt government
> bureaucracy.
>
Let the plodding and corrupt landlords handle it.
Tony Miller
Steve...@see.sig.for.address wrote:
>Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com) wrote:
>: Suppose there are 100 apartments, 150 people who want them, a free
>: rental market, and no new apartments being constructed. Presumably
>: rents will rise until 1/3 of the people drop out of the market.
>A nice euphemism: "drop out of the market". A term with more common
>usage though is "evicted", correct?
Yes, that is exactly true. Evicted. If you cannot afford the rent on
an apartment which is greater than your means.
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general Tony Miller <comput...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:) Steve...@see.sig.for.address wrote:
:) >Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com) wrote:
:) >: Suppose there are 100 apartments, 150 people who want them, a free
:) >: rental market, and no new apartments being constructed. Presumably
:) >: rents will rise until 1/3 of the people drop out of the market.
:) >A nice euphemism: "drop out of the market". A term with more common
:) >usage though is "evicted", correct?
:) Yes, that is exactly true. Evicted. If you cannot afford the rent on
:) an apartment which is greater than your means.
Then you find an apartment than you can afford. Hell, I'd love to
drive a Lamborghini, but I can only afford a Ford. Should the Lambo
dealer be forced to sell me a Diablo at the price of a Taurus?
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general moon...@ix.netcom.com.spamenot wrote:
:) Chris Mauritz wrote:
:) >
:) > Sane and affordable are in the eyes of the beholder. Market forces
:) > seem better able to handle this than a plodding and corrupt government
:) > bureaucracy.
:) >
:) Let the plodding and corrupt landlords handle it.
Even they cannot control it. Ultimately, the consumer decides.
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com) wrote:
: I don't see why you say "no competition. In the no rent control
: situation the owners of 100 apartments are competing against each other
: for the 100 out of 150 prospective tenants who will pay the highest
: rent.
I don't know what economic model you're referring to but "competition"
doesn't mean consumers fighting with other over the right to buy
and suppliers jacking up their prices till one of them "falls out".
It means *suppliers* competing with each other to provide better value
at lower prices. That's the philosophy of a free market competition.
NYC will never have enough housing to meet demand and
create a healthy market for free market competition. Removing
controls will do nothing to fix it either because those controls
were removed in 1974 when Rent Stabilization was made optional
for new housing construction. But the rental market is even more
one-sided now than it was then so the need for some form of rent
control is self-evident. That's just the geographical and
historical reality of this city.
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Chris Mauritz (ri...@onyx.interactive.net) wrote:
: Sane and affordable are in the eyes of the beholder.
No, they're in the pocketbook of the consumer. No one earning $50k/year
can afford to rent a $2k/month apartment.
: Market forces
: seem better able to handle this than a plodding and corrupt government
: bureaucracy.
If this were even remotely true there wouldn't BE any rent control
today, yesterday or three generations ago.
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general Steve...@see.sig.for.address wrote:
:) Chris Mauritz (ri...@onyx.interactive.net) wrote:
:) : Sane and affordable are in the eyes of the beholder.
:) No, they're in the pocketbook of the consumer. No one earning $50k/year
:) can afford to rent a $2k/month apartment.
And nobody is going to force them to do so. Those folks will
have to find housing that is affordable. There are plenty of
non-rentcontrolled apartments around that are affordable so
that won't change after RC is defunct.
:) : Market forces
:) : seem better able to handle this than a plodding and corrupt government
:) : bureaucracy.
:) If this were even remotely true there wouldn't BE any rent control
:) today, yesterday or three generations ago.
I see. Organized crime exists today too. So it must be good. RC
is passing by a thinner and thinner margin each time it comes up
for renewal. Its abolition is a forgone conclusion. It's just a
matter of when and which politicians are going to have the sac to
buck the old liberal democrat party line.
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Chris Mauritz (ri...@onyx.interactive.net) wrote:
: :) Yes, that is exactly true. Evicted. If you cannot afford the rent on
: :) an apartment which is greater than your means.
: Then you find an apartment than you can afford. Hell, I'd love to
: drive a Lamborghini, but I can only afford a Ford. Should the Lambo
: dealer be forced to sell me a Diablo at the price of a Taurus?
The issue is evicting tenants *in place*. Apartments aren't luxuries,
Chris. People who have lived for 20 years in the same apartment have
quite a bit more of their lives, families and friends invested in an
apartment than they do in a sports car.
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Chris Mauritz (ri...@onyx.interactive.net) wrote:
: :) : Sane and affordable are in the eyes of the beholder.
: :) No, they're in the pocketbook of the consumer. No one earning $50k/year
: :) can afford to rent a $2k/month apartment.
: And nobody is going to force them to do so.
When a landlord jacks up his rent to unconscionable levels, as one
loftlord following "market forces" attempted to do to me (385% rent
increase for a one-year lease), he most certainly is applying force.
He's forcing a tenant out into the street. Fortunately, I had a good
lawyer in David Rozenholc and, fortunately, Albany came to its senses
in time to put an end to this kind of gouging before my bank account
was drained by legal fees.
: Those folks will
: have to find housing that is affordable. There are plenty of
: non-rentcontrolled apartments around that are affordable so
: that won't change after RC is defunct.
And where would this be? Bed Stuy? Crown Heights? And how long will
they remain affordable? In case it's escaped your notice, when
people move into these undesirable neighborhoods, clean them up and
make them attractive... typically with minimal or nonexistent help
from the landlords... rents go up again and families get displaced
again. Forcing people in middle-income brackets to live like
gypsies, being uprooted every five years by opportunistic landlords,
is neither fair nor in the city's best interests. Neither is
forcing those middle income people out to the distant suburbs
because, as we saw during the last rounds of rent gouging in
Manhattan in the 80s and early 90s, large businesses will fold
their tents and follow the cheaper labor pool. And when that happens,
taxes go up to compensate for the lost revenue, and then the landlords
once again whine about their excessive property taxes.
: :) : Market forces
: :) : seem better able to handle this than a plodding and corrupt government
: :) : bureaucracy.
: :) If this were even remotely true there wouldn't BE any rent control
: :) today, yesterday or three generations ago.
: I see. Organized crime exists today too. So it must be good.
Organized crime also seeks profit at all costs, no matter who gets hurt
in the process, so maybe we should also get rid of those annoying laws
which prevent the wise guys from fully exploiting the earnings
potential of their various investments because, after all, the
market should be free to decide these things, no? If you don't like
the Gambino family screwing with the cost of food and clothing in
the city well, hey, you can always move to New Jersey!
: RC is passing by a thinner and thinner margin each time it comes up
: for renewal. Its abolition is a forgone conclusion.
The real estate lobby may have its manipulating claws into some key
legislators but landlords still represent a vanishingly small voting
block compared to tenants. Any legislator responsible for
overturning rent control in NYC is going to find himself looking for
honest work after the next election. And they know it.
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general Steve...@see.sig.for.address wrote:
:) Chris Mauritz (ri...@onyx.interactive.net) wrote:
:) : :) Yes, that is exactly true. Evicted. If you cannot afford the rent on
:) : :) an apartment which is greater than your means.
:) : Then you find an apartment than you can afford. Hell, I'd love to
:) : drive a Lamborghini, but I can only afford a Ford. Should the Lambo
:) : dealer be forced to sell me a Diablo at the price of a Taurus?
:) The issue is evicting tenants *in place*. Apartments aren't luxuries,
:) Chris. People who have lived for 20 years in the same apartment have
:) quite a bit more of their lives, families and friends invested in an
:) apartment than they do in a sports car.
But it's not THEIR apartment, regardless of how long they've lived
there. Rather than put the onus on society in general, and landlords
in particular, to bend the market to fit these folks, I feel the
tenant should be responsible to find a place they can afford.
If the tenant is in a place that is out of their price range as
a result of market distortions introduced by RC, then they shouldn't
be surprised when they need to find an *affordable* place to live
when those distortions are removed.
Chris Mauritz
In nyc.general Steve...@see.sig.for.address wrote:
:) Chris Mauritz (ri...@onyx.interactive.net) wrote:
:) : :) No, they're in the pocketbook of the consumer. No one earning $50k/year
:) : :) can afford to rent a $2k/month apartment.
:) : And nobody is going to force them to do so.
:) When a landlord jacks up his rent to unconscionable levels, as one
:) loftlord following "market forces" attempted to do to me (385% rent
:) increase for a one-year lease), he most certainly is applying force.
Then you move. If the new rent is THAT out of whack, nobody will
replace you as a tenant and the unit will either remain empty or
he'll have to lower the rent.
:) He's forcing a tenant out into the street. Fortunately, I had a good
:) lawyer in David Rozenholc and, fortunately, Albany came to its senses
:) in time to put an end to this kind of gouging before my bank account
:) was drained by legal fees.
Drained by legal fees because *you* chose to follow that course of
action. I think most sensible folk would have just moved to
another place with a more reasonable rent/landlord. But hey,
this is America....we have to keep the children of lawyers going
to those ivy league schools...sue sue sue.
:) : Those folks will
:) : have to find housing that is affordable. There are plenty of
:) : non-rentcontrolled apartments around that are affordable so
:) : that won't change after RC is defunct.
:) And where would this be? Bed Stuy? Crown Heights? And how long will
:) they remain affordable? In case it's escaped your notice, when
:) people move into these undesirable neighborhoods, clean them up and
:) make them attractive... typically with minimal or nonexistent help
:) from the landlords... rents go up again and families get displaced
So let me get this straight. People clean up the crummy neighborhoods
and then they're not entitled to any of the rewards associated with
owning property in those neighborhoods. uh huh. And we should
strive to keep those neighborhoods in squalor so that property
owners will expect to earn crapola on their investments and renters
will expect to live in a dump as a result of perfectly rentable units
being hoarded and not offered for rent as a result of RC.
:) again. Forcing people in middle-income brackets to live like
:) gypsies, being uprooted every five years by opportunistic landlords,
:) is neither fair nor in the city's best interests. Neither is
If you can't afford to live in the city, you shouldn't live in
the city. What is so difficult about that concept for you to
grasp?
:) forcing those middle income people out to the distant suburbs
:) because, as we saw during the last rounds of rent gouging in
:) Manhattan in the 80s and early 90s, large businesses will fold
:) their tents and follow the cheaper labor pool. And when that happens,
:) taxes go up to compensate for the lost revenue, and then the landlords
:) once again whine about their excessive property taxes.
Then those bad old evil landlords will have to lower their rents to
attract an ever shrinking pool of renters. Eventually, the rental
market stabilizes at a point where landlords and renters agree on
prices where most or all of the housing is occupied.
:) : :) : Market forces
:) : :) : seem better able to handle this than a plodding and corrupt government
:) : :) : bureaucracy.
:) : :) If this were even remotely true there wouldn't BE any rent control
:) : :) today, yesterday or three generations ago.
:) : I see. Organized crime exists today too. So it must be good.
:) Organized crime also seeks profit at all costs, no matter who gets hurt
:) in the process, so maybe we should also get rid of those annoying laws
:) which prevent the wise guys from fully exploiting the earnings
:) potential of their various investments because, after all, the
:) market should be free to decide these things, no? If you don't like
:) the Gambino family screwing with the cost of food and clothing in
:) the city well, hey, you can always move to New Jersey!
What's the difference between getting strongarmed into moving by
the mob or by the government?
:) : RC is passing by a thinner and thinner margin each time it comes up
:) : for renewal. Its abolition is a forgone conclusion.
:) The real estate lobby may have its manipulating claws into some key
:) legislators but landlords still represent a vanishingly small voting
:) block compared to tenants. Any legislator responsible for
:) overturning rent control in NYC is going to find himself looking for
:) honest work after the next election. And they know it.
We shall see. Sometimes it takes a bit of courage to do the
right thing.
Steve...@see.sig.for.address
Chris Mauritz (ri...@onyx.interactive.net) wrote:
: :) When a landlord jacks up his rent to unconscionable levels, as one
: :) loftlord following "market forces" attempted to do to me (385% rent
: :) increase for a one-year lease), he most certainly is applying force.
: Then you move.
No, what I do is exercise my legal rights and fight. I know that burns
you up but your narrow-minded "it's my ball and bat" real estate
philosophy won't ever cut it NY. If you want to own property for
yourself, go ahead and enjoy your rights all you want. But if you want
to own real estate as a *business* you will submit yourself to the same
regulations and restrictions as any other business that enjoys
freedom from competition to keep prices sane and equitable.
: Drained by legal fees because *you* chose to follow that course of
: action. I think most sensible folk would have just moved to
: another place with a more reasonable rent/landlord.
No, only a chickenshit tenant would back off from an unreasonable
or abusive landlord. Actually, I won the case just after Albany
passed Article 7C. In fact, the landlord's case was so foul and
full of falsehoods that the judge enjoined him from raising my rent
one penny until he brings the building up to residential code. That
was 14 years ago and no work has been done. Of course, the landlord
could have *chosen* to obey the law in the first place and not
falsely rented his commercial floors out as legal residential
lofts. But we know how rare such landlord deceptions are in NYC so
it's hardly worth mentioning, right?
: So let me get this straight. People clean up the crummy neighborhoods
: and then they're not entitled to any of the rewards associated with
: owning property in those neighborhoods. uh huh.
You didn't get that straight at all. I said that *tenants* initially
gentrified most of the neighborhoods which are now fetching big
bucks. There was virtually no investment from landlords when Soho
and the LES became livable. I know cause I lived through it. The
new wave of tenants provided the magnet which pulled others in.
Landlords sat on their hands and watched their property values
rise through the efforts of neighborhood community groups,
neighborhood retailers, tenant co-ops and the like. *After* those
neighborhoods became attractive residential options the vultures
moved in with large scale conversions, displacing many of those
who pioneered those neighborhoods.
So if it's your position that those who clean up crummy neighborhoods
are entitled to a reward for their investment, why are we arguing?
Rent control is the perfect "thank you" from those landlords who were
otherwise one step away from tax court.
: If you can't afford to live in the city, you shouldn't live in
: the city.
Will someone please give that skipping needle a tap?
: Then those bad old evil landlords will have to lower their rents to
: attract an ever shrinking pool of renters. Eventually, the rental
: market stabilizes at a point where landlords and renters agree on
: prices where most or all of the housing is occupied.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Bullshit walks, Chris. Show me an example,
not a high school economics postulate.
moon...@ix.netcom.com.z
Steve...@see.sig.for.address wrote:
>
> Yadda, yadda, yadda. Bullshit walks, Chris. Show me an example,
> not a high school economics postulate.
Chris, we are still waiting for you come forth with the NAME of a
landlord who LOWERED the rents in his building.
The well-connected pal of King Guiliani, Mr. Koppel and the "free rent
for patronige" scandal DOES NOT COUNT.
"Expose the crooks...make them open thier books!"