Posted by TenantNet on February 29, 2000 at 09:52:38:
In Reply to: Re: Larry the Landlord.. here here !!!!! posted by richard on February 29, 2000 at 09:32:25:
1. There's no need for you to post the same message multiple times.
2. You have no idea (neither do we) if this guy is a decent or horriblle LL. You have a habit of jumping to (usually wrong) conclusions).
3. If this guy wants to bemoan that rent regulation limits his income, that's OK, but we draw the line at anyone promoting the notion that rent regulation is a subsidy -- a notion put forth by the RSA. Any further crap about that is deep-sixed.
4. You have no idea (and neither do most people) what the purposes of rent regulation are. In addition to affordable housing, it's a device to maintain the middle class in the city -- that's whay it WAS a market-wide system, applicable to all of all incomes, until 1993. What has happened in Manhattan in the last several years shows what happens when you make it impossible for the middle class to stay in town. Maybe you should read Denis Hamill's recent column on Brooklyn (that is, if you do read). The abandonment (a very complex issue that has nothing to do with rent regs) that you've seen in cities like Detroit is precisely because they didn't take any steps to keep the middle class in the city, instead allowing "white flight" in the mid-1960's. Abandonment in NYC is very minor compared to other places, and has other causes. But look at the highest concentration of rent regulated housing anywhere -- the Upper East Side -- and certainly those buildings are well-maintained and there's no abandonment. Those arguments have nothing to do with reality. And the crap about mobility is also a strawman issue. Rent Regs were INTENDED to promote long-term residencies. That's how you get stable neighborhoods where people put down roots, send their kids to local schools, pay taxes, keep the infrastructure up and support local small business -- in short, keep the city alive. The lack of affordable housing is also a complex issue that's not really caused by rent regs -- you should read the studies on that.
And if you really think this Mayor has made this city safe, then you're more stupid than I thought.
OK, that's our rant -- we won't get drawn into a long debate on this topic simply because we don't have the time. But lets not have any of the RSA-invented fantasies.
: 1. You are right why should we subsidize people that make a lot of money, Rent stabilization should be means tested....your software designer would lose out, but your new tenant would be covered....that would give the new generation the same opportunity to save money toward buying a home or retirement, as the last generation.
: 2. Why is it that ALL landlords are rennovationg apartment by NOT putting in $300 stoves but $3000 goumet stoves , marble bathrooms kitchen , parquet floors, luxury fixtures..in order to raise the rent $5- 6- even $1000 a month instead of just doing minor repairs and raisng the rent $100-200 a month so the next tenant can have a chance at the American dream?
: 3. So Larry what did you do to justify $1750 a month? why didnt you do your civic responibility and do just enough repairs to make the rent $1000 a month or less?
: 4. And you are right that the Mayor and his polices of reducing crime, making New York City livable and safe, the unintended consequence is that people are NOT LEAVING, and people want to MOVE HERE and voila...massive housing shortage. Yet no one neither the politicaians or the LANDLORDS are willing to ante up and save afforable housing in this city.....SO landlord's will be compensated for it next year, by Massive Bankruptcies, when we head into a recession and all those people in $2000 a month apartments lose their jobs!
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup