Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Depends the issue with rent control(and the whole issue with being poor and careless to an extent) is that you will face a big jump in rent should you move. This causes people to stay put when they probably should move.
Staying put then is the lower-risk action and thus is precisely the opposite of carelessness!
This is false in NYC. Rent stabilization apartment qualifications are not based on low income, so being poor does not mean you get a rent stabilized apartment in NYC. Rent control and rent Stabilization have ruined the housing market in NYC. It has created a 2 tier system of rents due to the lack of turnover in the rent stabilized apartments. About 47% of NYC apartments are subject to rent control.
Exactly my point! Rent stabilized apartments turn over way more slowly than units which are neither rent controlled nor stabilized.
Rent control/stabilization is the government putting the burden of housing at a low rate to satisfy renters and the poor, and placing the burden on people that have invested in real estate. A lot of people have lost their investments, as the property is no longer feasible to own and feed it out of the owners savings, etc. Sure it helps renters and the poor, but it ruins the people that are willing to buy and put on the rental market property.
It is really the most unfair, way of robbing people that have invested in property. It is really the government robbing the owners, to benefit a lot of voters to help keep them in power. Rent control, is the biggest theft of money from the few that own property, without making voters/tax payers angry.
It would be much more fair, if the government taxed everyone in the city, and subsidized the rent for the people as a whole. That would be taking money in a much smaller amount from everyone, rather than forcing it all on the few that owned property forcing them to pay all of it.
Exactly my point! Rent stabilized apartments turn over way more slowly than units which are neither rent controlled nor stabilized.
In NYC, the problem with rent controls are even when people advance in their careers and earn more money they do not leave their stabilized apartment no matter how much they hate the apartment. The next step of rent to a non-stabilized apartment is too extreme because so many apartments are off the market.
I know people who are living in 5th floor walk up rentals on loud high traffic streets in NYC for 35 years. They hate where they live. This type of apartment is fine for when you are in your 20s, but not so fine when you are in your 50s. The normal progression would have been to move to better apartments and neighborhoods as your career and life progresses. Another example is older couples not downsizing from multi bedroom apartments because the rent would go up to get a smaller apartment. Amazingly, sometimes these older couples are able to transfer these huge, cheap apartments to their kids.
The upside of not moving is that many of these rent stabilization tenants now own 2nd homes on Fire Island, The Hamptons, The Jersey Shore, The Catskils, The Berkshires, etc. These second homes are bought on the backs of the property owners. The income limit for these apartments is $200k for 2 years in a row. If you are paying $750/month rent, that leaves a lot of money left over. In addition, most landlords do not check incomes after you get a lease.
In NYC, being poor does not mean you get a stabilized apartment. It means you do not get a stabilized apartment.
Two of the presenters who worked for non-profit/low-income housing orgs stated that they were acquiring existing housing to rehab and/or turn into affordable units. Which is great in the sense that we definitely need a good supply of affordable housing that isn't also substandard but pretty idiotic in the sense that taking housing off the market permanently only makes housing in the Bay Area more expensive for everyone else. Any new units - affordable or market rate - need to be new construction.
I spent about a few years working in construction project management. Mostly we rehabbed and flipped houses in the Philly area that were +80 years old. But I come from an urban planning background so maybe I have some different insights.
Technology renders houses obsolete and that alone can diminish their value significantly. In many cases the houses we worked on were in excellent locations in a geographic sense and had great access to transportation and other infrastructure but they were cheap because no one ever upgraded them and because they were in neighborhoods full of similar, antiquated housing. They were full of knob & tube wiring, had ancient oil furnaces, no a/c, ceramic sewer laterals, etc, etc.
In this day and age money is cheap to borrow and the fed. gov't encourages and subsidizes homeownership to great lengths. But updating and maintaining a house over the course of one's lifetime can be outrageously expensive and not everyone who can afford to buy a house can afford to take care of one. Where you find neighborhoods full of lower-middle class families today, especially those that are auto-oriented, those are the low income neighborhoods of tomorrow. The quality of the housing will continue to deteriorate and the tenure of the neighborhoods will slowly drift from owner-occupant, to absentee landlord, to slumlord to abandoned.
Rent control/stabilization is the government putting the burden of housing at a low rate to satisfy renters and the poor, and placing the burden on people that have invested in real estate. A lot of people have lost their investments, as the property is no longer feasible to own and feed it out of the owners savings, etc. Sure it helps renters and the poor, but it ruins the people that are willing to buy and put on the rental market property.
It is really the most unfair, way of robbing people that have invested in property. It is really the government robbing the owners, to benefit a lot of voters to help keep them in power. Rent control, is the biggest theft of money from the few that own property, without making voters/tax payers angry.
It would be much more fair, if the government taxed everyone in the city, and subsidized the rent for the people as a whole. That would be taking money in a much smaller amount from everyone, rather than forcing it all on the few that owned property forcing them to pay all of it.
Based on what you write, substandard housing is a market necessity, and the only one which is not redistributive.
I spent about a few years working in construction project management. Mostly we rehabbed and flipped houses in the Philly area that were +80 years old. But I come from an urban planning background so maybe I have some different insights.
Technology renders houses obsolete and that alone can diminish their value significantly. In many cases the houses we worked on were in excellent locations in a geographic sense and had great access to transportation and other infrastructure but they were cheap because no one ever upgraded them and because they were in neighborhoods full of similar, antiquated housing. They were full of knob & tube wiring, had ancient oil furnaces, no a/c, ceramic sewer laterals, etc, etc.
In this day and age money is cheap to borrow and the fed. gov't encourages and subsidizes homeownership to great lengths. But updating and maintaining a house over the course of one's lifetime can be outrageously expensive and not everyone who can afford to buy a house can afford to take care of one. Where you find neighborhoods full of lower-middle class families today, especially those that are auto-oriented, those are the low income neighborhoods of tomorrow. The quality of the housing will continue to deteriorate and the tenure of the neighborhoods will slowly drift from owner-occupant, to absentee landlord, to slumlord to abandoned.
Sounds like a great opportunity for low income people who want to own a home. So why isn't government helping these people get into ownership instead of leaving the housing stock to slumlords?
Sounds like a great opportunity for low income people who want to own a home. So why isn't government helping these people get into ownership instead of leaving the housing stock to slumlords?
To quote myself: But updating and maintaining a house over the course of one's lifetime can be outrageously expensive and not everyone who can afford to buy a house can afford to take care of one.
8 years ago a lot of people on the far right were blaming the financial crisis on Clinton-era lending rules (of the CRA) that were "forcing banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them."
Changing the landlord doesn't change the tenant. The tenant can only afford what he can afford and most of the time that means either subsidized housing or housing which is toward the end of its life cycle.
02-26-2018, 02:52 AM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 12 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,926,035 times
Reputation: 4052
Exclusive high quality isn’t ever sacrificing on fast process. We are able to completely avoid those crummy low rate residential abodes that are eyesores or are mistakes even nightmares in the grand scheme of reality. Outside of class stratification dynamics, there are other conceptual angles that are imperatives to include. Construct these buildings with common sense on enough rational aesthetics without going overboard on costs. Thriving improve stage on what is foundational to us in renting or real estate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
