Pull out your calculators because it is time to rearrange your already meager budget and brace for another rent increase. The rent guidelines board voted to raise stabilized rents another 2-4%. The only stability there seems to be is the annual rent increases! So much for those frothy Starbucks beverages.
During a meeting described as a “charade,” the Rent Guidelines Board voted to raise rent on rent stabilized apartments.
The board — composed of nine members appointed by the mayor — recommended that rent be increased by between 2% and 4.5% for one-year leases and between 4% and 7.5% for two-year leases. The proposal left both landlords and tenants complaining that there was no concrete number to consider. The increase, which will be decided in late June, will affect 1 million rent-stabilized apartments throughout the city.
Read the rest of this article here [NYSun] or over here [NYT]
koko
May 10, 2007
There seems to be come confusion about rent control/stabilization and market. Rent control is a dead program — the only way to get a rent controlled apartment is to inherit one. Rent stabilization is still in effect but being phased out as more apartments reach market rates. Tenants do not qualify for rent stabilization — an apartment is either rent stabilized or its not. If you rent that apartment you become a rent stabilized tenant whether you make $10,000/yr or $250,000/yr. Many landlords are now taking their apartments (and whole buildings) out of rent stabilization by renovating them and bringing them up to market rates.
You’re very lucky if you still have a rent stabilized apartment and you just have to absorb the increases, which are modest. I understand that this strains some people’s budgets but it is not a landlord’s business to subsidize living expenses — one must turn to real public assistance programs. Rent stabilization is not subsidized housing or a public assistance program.
I wish I had my old rent stabilized apartment but I foolishly gave it up when I moved six years ago. Since then I have been priced out of two market rate apartments and forced to move. The NYC real estate market is brutal nowadays and everyone is getting chewed up by it. Unfortunately, the NYC government is very r/e friendly and won’t make new laws to govern rents.
Hugo
May 10, 2007
good point…should read the people who are meant to benefit most from rent control/stabilzed situations are those who are thw working class….thank you.
anon
May 10, 2007
Hugo –
With all due respect, please be careful with your own “assumptions”. What evidence do you have to support your statement that “most are (as others have described) teachers, contructions workers, doormen”? That sounds anecdotal at best. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
Hugo
May 10, 2007
#18, thanks for that sweet and terse reality bite.it reminds me when some commentors on curbed were whining about people getting some of these new condo apts with subsidies.they all made the assumptions that were going to share the elevators with crack users and thugs.it comes down to who the people receiving assistance through rent control or rent subsidies are.most are (as others have described) teachers, contructions workers, doormen.to say that “hey, it nyc. it’s expensive, you’ll just have to move somewhere else” flies in the face of the legacy of those who built this city literally on their backs.
this city has become the luxury hub that it is because of the unfair consequences of gentrification, hyperinflation, and other dynamics that extend the gap between the upper class and lower class, obliterating the middle. that’s why mechanisms such as public assistance, rent control & subsidies, etc are in place.it’s because in a fair economy (depending where you stand in the spectrum of economic models)there is supposed to be room for the real estate owners, the wall street bankers, the plumber, the bodega owners. these programs help balance things. their effectiveness and sometimes the wierd criteria may be questionable. but to say that new york only has room for the privileged is just assinine.
once again, i am not against the rent increases for rent stabilized apartment. it is a necessary part of the mechanism to keep things in check. i just feel as if the image folks get about those being affected is that of lazy people sucking away resources from the city. these folks are keeping YOUR city running.
Anonymous
May 10, 2007
Finally, the voice of reason #18. Secondly, I think some people are confused about rent stabilization. Rent control is different. I’m not mad at anyone that has less or more than me. If they fall into a rent control situation, good for them. If they can afford to pay market rate rent, good for them. If they are middle of the road and need to know that they are not going to be priced out of their neighborhood no sooner than their boxes are unpacked then good for them. Someone else’s success doesn’t impact me to the degree that some people are making it seem. This is new york and you get in where you fit in. Enjoy the ride.
reality
May 10, 2007
if we all really believe that everyone living in rent control is poor and everyone living in market rate is rich then we are a pretty idealistic bunch of idiots.
anon
May 10, 2007
the problem with rent control is that there is such limited access to it. it’s completely unfair how people qualify for it—there are so many people in this city struggling to pay the rent, including professionals who are contributing to the city as much as those benifiting from the rent control. in fact, there is an article in today’s new york times detailing the insane arrangement’s people are forced to come up with just to be able to find a place they can afford because market rates are so out of control. how is it fair that a teacher or a non-profit worker or a social worker have to live in bad neighborhoods sharing 2 to 3 to a bedroom to survive??? because they arent lucky enough to be grandfathered in to some rent control situation.
it’s truly hard for me to feel sorry for someone having to pay a 7% increase on a greatly reduced rental cost when there are people out there struggling and living in terrible situations to scrape by because of what is going on in today’s market rate rental situation.
Anonymous
May 10, 2007
I find those comments very disturbing. They reek of -isms. There were some who thought that blacks, jews, pols, irish, italians and chinese also didn’t belong in nyc. What would this city be without their contributions. So now we’ve flipped the script and all the doormen,teachers, polices and other lower to middle income people have to live on outskirts of the city because now people who live comfortable and really can afford to pay the rent increases but choose not to want to live in their neighborhoods that were previously abandoned by society? How many times have blacks been pushed out of neighborhoods in this city? You can find the answer at the historical society and the museum of nyc. it’s been mroe than twice i can tell you that and now to say they don’t belong in ny at all? there is so much wrong with that statement. rent stab has a purpose and that is to provide shelter to those who have the right to live in a city that they helped build and support. they aren’t taking money out of your pocket or food out of your mouth.they work and pay taxes like everyone else and they pay rent. this isn’t a free ride people. this city is overinflated plain and simple. you live in a hell hole and people still want to take the littel bit that you have. what kind of mentality is that?
basic
May 10, 2007
Economics 101: Rent stabilized apartments remove supply from the open rental market, thereby increasing the demand for the remaining non-stabilized apts. Non-stabilized renters pay the price with higher rents.
Anon
May 9, 2007
13 – according to the economic realities city dwellers and renters face. take a look at your post and your saying because Milk has gone way up, Landlords should absorb that reality renters are faced with (despite it having nothing to do with them and their cost of doing business).
I live in Harlem, I have a rent stab apt. But I am also a landlord in another state. Cracks me up with the pervasive sense of entitlement throughout Harlem & NYC. People think because they have a Rent Stab Apt they should not be subject to rent increases of 7.5%, which in contest is measly.
The cost of living in NYC is high and they want Landlords to bear the burden for what the Dairy industry is doing to them? That makes a lot of sense.
7.5% is a fraction of what other Harlem renters get handed to them. If you live in Harlem, you know people that got 2 and 3 + a high rent increase.
Broke Guy
May 9, 2007
Wait, “have no business living in NYC?” According to whom? Who made you King of New York to decide who should and should not live in New York? Is this Donald Trump posting anonymously? And yes, the price of milk and other things have gone up…all the more reason why rents should not be increasing when incomes are not. Market rate does not equal superior and rent stabilized does not equal lazy and on welfare.
Anon
May 9, 2007
i feel most of you are in avoidance in your response. the two are separate issues: (1)subsidized housing & (2) reasonable rent increases in NYC in ’07. a lot of people have no business living in NYC. People without subsidized housing have to consider (and DO) move outside the city to Yonkers or wherever, why should benefactors of subsidized housing not have to do the same?
If a 7.5% increase on your rent stab apt “impacts” you? You need to move to a location outside of the City with lower housing cost. The rent stab apt is not enough? Now you also want immunity to increased rents of a small fraction of what the market pays? Good grief!
The price of Milk has skyrocketed in the last 6, 12 and 18 months, should rent stab benefactors also be immune to the real world of the cost of Milk in ’07?
Again, if 7.5% increase on a 2 year lease in ’07 justifies you to complain? You need the move out of the City. That’s just life in living in NYC in ’07….or better yet, talk to the person with the Apt that went from 1,500 to 1,800. That’s common and everyday, 20%. That person has to deal with it, get and 2nd or 3rd job, or perish the thought, move to a place with lower housing cost.
God forbid benefactors of subsidized housing have to be like the rest of us and consider moving. Oh no, we can’t have that!
ac
May 9, 2007
not you!!!! you know i have nothing but love for hugo!
Hugo
May 9, 2007
not discounting them, man…just wanted to give you credit for my response
we go way back!
ac
May 9, 2007
i hear you hugo. that’s why i qualified what i was saying by allowing that i might not know the reality of the situation having never experienced it. considering i said that and was trying to be balanced in my input-it’s still awful nice that others see fit to discount my opinions and my experiences! yay uptown flavor!
Hugo
May 9, 2007
#4, you have made a couple assumptions. one is that that single digit increases are somehow aborbed into the intended person’s budget without recourse. i am not saying that the increase should not occur or that it is unfair (every tenant anywhere will always complain about increases).what i am saying is that for someone who lives in rent stabilized housing it requires allocating money from other necessities (not luxuries).Remember these apartments are given to persons who meet a certain income threshhold. On the scale of things, a regular market increase for the majority of the city is the equivalent increase for tenants in rent subsidized living. This is the way the system is designed to work. You can argue of course that some people abuse the system or take advantage but they do not represent the majority of people rent stabilization helps.
If it were a case of cutting down on clubbing or vacationing it would be a non-issue or a matter of mere inconvenience. When it involves cutting back on necessities for basic living the issue becomes a bit tougher. Also, I am not arguing for the entitlement of anything. These are city and federal programs designed to protect the working middle class from being washed out with urban progress. The government has decided to make certain promises to these folks. Perhaps that is what you do not agree with. We can go through the pros and cons of social welfare being the responsibility of the government(or not), but that is not the point I am making.
Also, you stated that these were “nice” apartments. This is also not always the case.
Anonygirl, I respect your situation. My father was a landlord for many years and I can surely tell you that the increases do not cover the expenses of the landlord. And that are costs that cannot be quantified. That is why I made my point earlier that programs should exist for landlords as well.
AC, as someone who came from a family of rent stabilized housing, believe me, $70 represented a big percentage of the money we had to work with. Now that I can pay my own way and have managed to earn a modest income, to complain about a $70 increase would be laughable. It all depends on where you’re coming from. That’s the point I am making.
Anonygirl
May 9, 2007
As the landlord of a house that is rent stabilized…7.5% isn’t sufficient. What a lot of tenants don’t understand, running a house/apartment building is expensive. There are many costs that landlords endure that are not charged to the tenant. There is plumbing, heating, pest control (even though the tenant can be nasty)and in a lot of rent controlled apartments…electricity costs. Plus, in a lot of instances, tenants don’t even respect the property that the live in, so clean up of a tenant’s mess is the landlord’s responsibility.
Bottom line, if you aren’t walking in a landlord’s shoes, you don’t know the real deal. Granted, there are some bastards out there who are straight up slum lords, but for those you aren’t…this is like getting a stick in the butt.
Tina
May 8, 2007
That is a big deal to someone who is already struggling to make ends meeting. $70 a month (if we are even talking about that amount) can pay for so many necessities…an electric bill, a visit to clinic, a prescription, groceries, hell a metrocard for the month! I think it is hard for someone who never had to scratch to get by to understand have a single digit percentage impacts people. I don’t see the landlords going broke and winding up on the streets, yet it is a well known fact that many Americans are at least 2 paychecks from the streets. Some even less.
ac
May 8, 2007
im not taking sides, because i’ve never had a rent controled apartment and i’ve never been in the situation when a small amount of money could make or break me. but just looking at the math puts some perspective. if your rent is $1000, a 7% increase is $70 a month. it’s a very small amount, in the context of the $1000 that is already being paid.
now i dont know what rent controlled rents run about–is $1000 about what we’re talking about here? or less? more?
Anon
May 8, 2007
3, does not matter. if you’re going to complain about a single digit rent increase on a 2 yr lease for a nice apt., while the open market is commonly facing 3 and 4 times the level of rent increase, you move from the City. 7% rent increase is nothing compared to the open market where it’s common to see 28% in Harlem, easy.
You’re arguing for entitlement of not having to live and contend with the real world, where prices go up. It’s absurd that people want the privilege of rent Stab apt in one of the most expensive cities in America and then gripe over a 7% increase on a 2 yr lease?
I see no reason why the benefactors of subsidizing housing should be immune for the real world and not have to contend with real life. I don’t care what their life profiles are like – if 7.5% causes you to gripe, you really should move to a place with a lower cost of living.
Hugo
May 8, 2007
well there’s a reason that rent is stabilized for certain folks. those single digit increases represent a larger share of their expenses than for those getting rent raises in the double digits. so not everyone is going to celebrate that money one month’s food, daycare expenses, or school tuition is being cut into.
regarding landlords expenses, if programs exist to stabilize rent for tenants, perhaps programs should exist to assist landlords as well. i for one have had too many experiences with slumlords. i suppose honest landlords exist, though. they could use the break. i just have never met any of them. you do make a good point, though. neither the landlords nor the tenants are happy about it. i suppose this is proof of a good negotiation result.
Harlem Proud
May 8, 2007
The landlords are not very happy with this either. Their expenses are higher than what they are allowed to charge for rent. This is unfair. If landlords are expected to rent a unit stabilized then they need government assistance to meet their expenses. Otherwise, an even higher increase should be allowed.
Anon
May 8, 2007
C’mon, who can complain with a Rent Stab apt? I know Harlemites who’s rent has gone from 1800 to 2300 / mo. for a 2 bedroom, studios that have gone from 1150 to 1450.
People renting at market are commonly facing 20%-25%+ rent increases minimum. Single digit rent increases on 2 year leases?
I call that cause for celebration, a party!