New York landlords take a hit as Democrats reach agreement on significant rent reform

Noctis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,617
New York City

“Bills included will end the vacancy bonus, which allows landlords to increase rents by 20% whenever a regulated unit is empty and jack up rents until the apartment is no longer covered by regulations.”


It’s a good day for New Yorkers.
 

fuchsdh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,745

“Bills included will end the vacancy bonus, which allows landlords to increase rents by 20% whenever a regulated unit is empty and jack up rents until the apartment is no longer covered by regulations.”


It’s a good day for New Yorkers.
More like it’s a good day for the New Yorkers these laws will cover, bad for the ones it won’t, and bad insofar as increasing the housing crisis.
 
OP
OP
Noctis

Noctis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,617
New York City
More like it’s a good day for the New Yorkers these laws will cover, bad for the ones it won’t, and bad insofar as increasing the housing crisis.
the new laws will certainly keep the bar low and work as leverage against landlords trying to raise our rent as well. The victory is for ALL tenants, not just for those under rent-stabilization.

Not perfect but it’s a start.
 

Syriel

Member
Dec 13, 2017
4,927

“Bills included will end the vacancy bonus, which allows landlords to increase rents by 20% whenever a regulated unit is empty and jack up rents until the apartment is no longer covered by regulations.”


It’s a good day for New Yorkers.
Hello to no more improvement. This pretty much guarantees no capital upgrades.

Individual apartment improvements will be capped at $15,000 per 15 years.
 

fuchsdh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,745
the new laws will certainly keep the bar low and work as leverage against landlords trying to raise our rent as well. The victory is for ALL tenants, not just for those under rent-stabilization.

Not perfect but it’s a start.
Preventing landlords from paying for improvements to properties via rent increases seems like a great way to encourage slums.

Rent stabilization is a band-aid over the problem of supply, which these laws at best do not tackle at all. Which means they’re not actually helping long-term with stopping rents from rising.
 

entremet

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,241
I can't see this improving the housing crisis. Take the power away from the NIMBYs completely.
 

ccbfan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
591
WTF $15,000 max per 15 years?

Thats like 1 bathroom or half a kitchen.

Does none of them know how much it cost to renovate?
 

infinite

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,762
Preventing landlords from paying for improvements to properties via rent increases seems like a great way to encourage slums.

Rent stabilization is a band-aid over the problem of supply, which these laws at best do not tackle at all. Which means they’re not actually helping long-term with stopping rents from rising.
landlords get tax breaks in the city for apartment improvements tho

Not a fan of the capping improvements to 15,000 for 15 years, though. Sounds really bad.
I'm not too sure how to take that one either but the wording in the article leaves a lot to be desired. Not sure I even understand what that means.
 

platocplx

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,392
They need a lot more like changing zoning laws, and also increasing the amount of apts that can be affordable in new buildings. Something like at least 70/30 for new apts and increase allotments when they have extended apt vacancies etc. there’s a lot that still needs to be done.
 

krazen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,030
Gentrified Brooklyn
Why is everyone anti-rent control?

NY isn’t SF. There’s plenty of new housing stock being built, particularly in the outer boroughs, the problem is that it’s on the luxury side of things. The argument is that developers say the powers that be (property taxes, union workers, etc) only make It feasible to build luxury housing, but seeing luxury housing being built in neighborhoods that are the very definition of ‘the hood’ makes me think that’s just smoke and mirrors and a cash grab for higher end tenants who are running out (which you see on the retail side, some monied parts of manhattan look like the 80’s as far as empty storefronts are concerned, lol)
 

infinite

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,762
Why is everyone anti-rent control?

NY isn’t SF. There’s plenty of new housing stock being built, particularly in the outer boroughs, the problem is that it’s on the luxury side of things. The argument is that developers say the powers that be (property taxes, union workers, etc) only make It feasible to build luxury housing, but seeing luxury housing being built in neighborhoods that are the very definition of ‘the hood’ makes me think that’s just smoke and mirrors.
You note a interesting paradigm with "luxury" housing being built in 'the hood'. Even with 30% affordable units in the building, you're still having a dramatically negative impact on the housing market of that particular area. To put it plainly you're reducing the total number of affordable units in that neighborhood as opposed to increasing it. If you did the same thing in a neighborhood like forest hills the opposite would be true. You're increasing housing stock and affordability in that particular area. Because of NIMBYism which is ultimately motivated by greed we choose to work backwards in solving this problem
 

fuchsdh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,745
Why is everyone anti-rent control?

NY isn’t SF. There’s plenty of new housing stock being built, particularly in the outer boroughs, the problem is that it’s on the luxury side of things. The argument is that developers say the powers that be (property taxes, union workers, etc) only make It feasible to build luxury housing, but seeing luxury housing being built in neighborhoods that are the very definition of ‘the hood’ makes me think that’s just smoke and mirrors and a cash grab for higher end tenants who are running out (which you see on the retail side, some monied parts of manhattan look like the 80’s as far as empty storefronts are concerned, lol)
They’re building in those areas because it’s cheaper to buy the land there. Limited dividend companies aren’t really a thing these days and the government building housing pretty well killed them, so people are going to try and maximize returns.

The problem is there’s no way to get out of a problem decades in the making overnight. NY still isn’t building enough housing to account for population growth; last I checked in 2018 they were still fewer permits than before the recession being granted every year.
 

TAH3145

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,386
Great news for everyone with a rent stabilized apartment. Bad news for everyone else.
 

MilesQ

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,980
Good to see it finally happen, hopefully it'll inspire other cities around the world to address their out of control rental markets.
 

krazen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,030
Gentrified Brooklyn
m
You note a interesting paradigm with "luxury" housing being built in 'the hood'. Even with 30% affordable units in the building, you're still having a dramatically negative impact on the housing market of that particular area. To put it plainly you're reducing the total number of affordable units in that neighborhood as opposed to increasing it. If you did the same thing in a neighborhood like forest hills the opposite would be true. You're increasing housing stock and affordability in that particular area. Because of NIMBYism which is ultimately motivated by greed we choose to work backwards in solving this problem
I mean that’s a part of it, isn’t it? I literally jusf got notification for a lottery in Bushwick where it’s 130% of the supposed median rent of the neighborhood which is pretty much yuppie territory ($1,850). The irony is I lived in a brownstone a few blocks away ten years ago made as a duplex for half the rent, lol. And the building is far away from the amenities (bars! overpriced coffee) that the happy gentrifiers move in for
 

Lunchbox-

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,854
bEast Coast
couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of bastards

i would say make it happen all over the country, but other places don’t charge 2200 for a 1 bed hole in the wall
 

Davilmar

Member
Oct 27, 2017
784
Good time to be living back home in Brooklyn. We needed this shit ages ago, but I'll take a win for the moment.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,600
I was making a joke about the "neo-feudalist enablers" actually being NIMBYs.
Except this is NYC and not San Francisco. The problem is not stagnation of new supply. The city is insanely densely built, moreso than just about any other city in the world.

The cost of land, and thus real estate, in NYC will always be absurdly high due to physical limitation in expansion. Opportunistic rich people parking their money by gobbling up real estate to make a low-effort buck are the problem in a place like this. There is just no way to get around it in a place like this.
 

finalflame

Product Management
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
2,136
couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of bastards

i would say make it happen all over the country, but other places don’t charge 2200 for a 1 bed hole in the wall
$2200? I'd be fucking over the moon if I could get a 1/1 for that in SF, or even anywhere in the immediate Bay Area. Seems NYC is doing comparatively way better.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,056
Except this is NYC and not San Francisco. The problem is not stagnation of new supply. The city is insanely densely built, moreso than just about any other city in the world.

The cost of land, and thus real estate, in NYC will always be absurdly high due to physical limitation in expansion. Opportunistic rich people parking their money by gobbling up real estate to make a low-effort buck are the problem in a place like this. There is just no way to get around it in a place like this.
Yes, it's NYC. When building height/density restrictions mean that you're not able to replace an existing building with a new building that is able to contain the same number of housing units, it's the same damn fundamental problem. I do not disagree that the geography means that NY will always be expensive relative to other cities, but land development restrictions from existing residents and/or property owners to limit the amount of people who can move into a neighborhood is a problem even there.
 
Yes, it's NYC. When building height/density restrictions mean that you're not able to replace an existing building with a new building that is able to contain the same number of housing units, it's the same damn fundamental problem. I do not disagree that the geography means that NY will always be expensive relative to other cities, but land development restrictions from existing residents and/or property owners to limit the amount of people who can move into a neighborhood is a problem even there.
Yeah, this. Replacing units is making a lot of cities worse too, especially if they're fucking McMansions. Teardowns are awful.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,600
Yes, it's NYC. When building height/density restrictions mean that you're not able to replace an existing building with a new building that is able to contain the same number of housing units, it's the same damn fundamental problem. I do not disagree that the geography means that NY will always be expensive relative to other cities, but land development restrictions from existing residents and/or property owners to limit the amount of people who can move into a neighborhood is a problem even there.
My point is that at that level of density, adding more people is not necessarily a good thing, in addition to the space limitations. Quality of life relative to density operates on a bell curve just like everything else. You jam too many people in that small of a space and it begins to detrimentally affect quality of life. NYC has different problems than west coast cities exactly for this reason.
 

devourbooks

Member
May 16, 2019
116

“Bills included will end the vacancy bonus, which allows landlords to increase rents by 20% whenever a regulated unit is empty and jack up rents until the apartment is no longer covered by regulations.”


It’s a good day for New Yorkers.
OH MY GOD

NON-NYers YOU HAVE NO IDEA getting rid of that vacancy rule will change EVERYTHING. Landlords force apartments to be empty, contributing to homelessness, just so they can jack up rents because of that idiotic rule.

They need to retroactively lower rents across the board because the fuckin landlords are out of control. Management companies are the most corrupt evil organizations in NYC hands down.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,056
My point is that at that level of density, adding more people is not necessarily a good thing, in addition to the space limitations. Quality of life relative to density operates on a bell curve just like everything else. You jam too many people in that small of a space and it begins to detrimentally affect quality of life. NYC has different problems than west coast cities exactly for this reason.
Yes it is. Tokyo does just fine. This attitude is a huge part of the problem.