Interesting article worth reading.

[nycat]

Article

[Lilly]

YAW N

[MikeW]

Yawn all you want. Some of the legislators have to be thinking that if rent regulation goes, assessed values will skyrocket and property tax collections will go way up. That would save the state from having to send money out to the city.

Especially for the non-city legislators, who get no political benefit from rent regulation, that could be a strong motivation to kill the regs. They'd rather use that money for other things than send it to the city.

[custudent]

The other side of the coin is that if rent regulations are eliminated and rent increased to market rates (when leases expire), the disposable income of a million families will likely decline. This would reduce sales tax revenue almost immediately. The increase in property taxes would be delayed by several years. Considering the city’s current fiscal crisis, deregulating may harmful to the city in the short-run.

[nycat]

Why is everyone worried vacancy decontrol is the biggest threat to the regulations. 10% have been deregulated since 1993. At that rate, it will take over 100 years to deregulate all the apartments in New York.

[MikeW]

Cat,

In case you haven't heard, if the laws aren't renewed, and they expire by June 15, All NYC apartments will go to market rate within two years.

With the de facto vacancy decontrol that we now have, at least existing tenant are protected.

[nycat]

Mike, I agree. My point is that the real threat is the laws themselves may go away, but what we keep hearing from the advocates is how many apartments have been deregulated.

[MikeW]

Of course the extremist never accept any compromise. They don't see the writing on the wall that the political winds have changed, and the can't get everything they want.

Tenantnet has it in for Shelly Silver for agreeing to the '97 rent law changes that are allowing vacancy decontrol. What Mr. 'Net has never explaimed successfully, at least to me, is how Shelly could have prevented a full and complete expiration of the rent laws if he hadn't cut a deal with Bruno and Pataki. It was a game of chicken, and if he didn't swerve, the other side was fully ready to have the wreck.

We'll see the same thing this time around. The best that can be hoped for is a straight up renewal. The high rent decontrol provision is NOT going to go away. They'll be lucky if the threshold doesn't drop from $2k to $1750 or so. I still think it's quite possible Bruno and/or Pataki will mount a last second blockade of a renewal. Last time around, the said right up front that they were looking to kill the laws. But at the last minute, Pataki, facing election in less than a year, took Shelly's deal. This year, they may mount a stealth attack. And with his popularity already in the toilet, but not facing an election for three years, Pataki may bite the bullet and kill the regs, with Bruno explicit or implict support.

[nycat]

Is it at all likely they will let the laws expire? To me it seems that this is not at all possible, but I have nothing to base this on except that they would be afraid of the chaos it would cause.

[MikeW]

Technically, it's very possible. The DO expire on June 15th, 2003. Politically, it would make a big stink if they were allowed to expire. However that stink would largely be confined to the city. There are rent regulated tenants scattered elsewhere in the state, but they're a vast minority out there. In the city, I don't know if they're quite a majority, but they're up there in numbers (figure a million or so apartments).

The amount of drama incurred in renewing the rent laws reflects the balace of power of the city vs the suburbs vs upstate. Over the last decade or two, the power has been shifting out of the city, towards the suburbs. The suburban and upstate politicos could care less about what the city needs. Witness the death of the commuter tax. That was a bald faced display of power by the suburbs.

The city LLs routine make large campaign contributions to the out of city politicians, so those politicians are receptive to calls for relaxation/elimination of the rent regs. However, usually the regs become a bargaining chip that the Republicans (governor and state senate) use when negotiating deals with the Democrats who control the Assembly.
Last time around the Republicans made big noises about killing the regs only to back off at the last minute. This time around, they've been making noncommittally vague friendly noises about the ret regs. Is this real? Is this a smoke screen? We'll find out at 11:59PM on June 15th.

[nycat]

I guess one silver lining to the cloud of lowering the vacancy de-control threashold would be that rents on newly decontroled apartments would be lower. As it stands now it has to go to $2000, meaning that you can't rent a decontroled apartment for under that. Conversely, if the threashold is raised to say $2500 then all those newly deregulated apartments-due to capital improvements-would rent for $2500 instead of $2000.

[Lilly]

Huh?

[nycat]

I thought that that a vacant unit could be de-controled it the rent hits $2000. From what I understand, the vast majority of vacancy de-control is the result of 1/40th the capital improvements. If the threashold is lowered to $1750 then some of these newly de-controled apartments will rent for that amount as opposed to $2000. I'm not advocating vacancy de-cntrol, just pointing out a silver lining if he threashold is lowered.

[jot0n0]

As the rent regulation deadline draws closer, the volume of opinions and studies start flying. Here another editorial on the subject of rent control.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06022003/postopinion/opedcolumnists/141.htm

[jot0n0]

More articles from the NY Post regarding rent regulation.

NY Post Article, 5/29/03

NY Post Article, 6/9/03