Posted by TenantNet on April 16, 1997 at 13:50:35:
In Reply to: Re: Please End Rent Regulation posted by MikeW on April 16, 1997 at 11:50:08:
: I'm not talking about renovating existing apartments, I'm talking about
creating new apartments ( and not just carving a two bedroom into a one
bedroom and a studio ). To add a significant number of apartments to the
market, you need to find a piece of land and build a building with lots of
units. Since there is very little open land available, especially in
good residential areas, that means tearing something down.
Those are issues of zoning and geography, and also willingness to build.
Even in non-regulated situations (where they can empty buildings), no
one builds except luxury units. It's not an issue of regulation.
: Another benefit to this is that under the current real estate tax
structure, 20% of the apartments in new rental buildings would be
reserved for low income tenents. So you'll end up with more affordable
housing in one large new building then in several little tenements
(whose rents currently may or may not be affordable)
That comes into play with j-51, 421-a or inclusionary housing programs,
but it's optional. The reality is that in inclusionary programs, they usually
put the 20% low-income units over in Brooklyn, not in Manhattan (there's no
requirement they be in the same building or nearby). So Brooklyn becomes the
poor borough and Manhattan the playground for the wealthy. Rent laws also
have the intention of stabilizing neighborhoods. Even so, the inclusionary
housing options aren't used that often.
Even with significant incentives, developers will not add substantial number of
moderate-income units to the market. No one claims rent regs is a complete
housing policy (it's not) nor will it solve all the housing issues in NYC
(it does not). To measure rent regs against expectations never intended
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup