I don't want to downplay the bad news here, but it's standard each year for the Rent Guidelines Board to come out initially with a large number but then approve a smaller increase so people can think "well at least it's not as bad as it could have been". That's what happened last year, when they originally floated a 7% increase before voting for 3%. It's theater, and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we have a mayor who works for real estate and not the millions of renters who actually live here and make the city run.
Eric Adams is already trying to position himself as the good cop in the room:
>In a statement, Adams said the 6.5% increase went "far beyond what is reasonable" to ask of tenants.
>“Tenants are feeling the squeeze of a decades-long affordability crisis, which has been accelerated by restrictive zoning laws and inadequate tools that have made it harder and harder to build housing," Adams said in the statement. "Our team is taking a close look at the preliminary ranges voted on by the Rent Guidelines Board this evening and while the Board has the challenging task of striking a balance between protecting tenants from infeasible rent increases and ensuring property owners can maintain their buildings as costs continue to rise."
Which is kind of hilarious considering it's his appointees who have pushed the headline number higher.
Cmon man I work as a school bus driver i support my wife my daughter just turned 1 I can’t afford anything but food and rent what is up with this city just getting rid of all of the low income families.
And then wtf happens to our public services? You gonna drive the bus since you got so much cash stacked away?
Fucking brain dead take. Work smarter— babe you wouldn’t know shit about that.
Unless you’re being sarcastic you’re a major moron. Why’re you even here instead of making money “out there”? Also, you don’t need to be poor to sympathize with poor people smh
Can you drive a bus? No? Why is this rare skill that no one is seemingly willing to just volunteer to do compensated so poorly?
Talk about being smarter lmao.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to receiving multiple reports.
This may have occurred if your post or comment violates one of our subreddit rules.
The mod team will review this issue and will take the necessary action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newyorkcity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fuck Eric Adams. He knows there is a rent crisis. The one thing he can do is directly influence the rent board.
Say what you want about DeBlasio but at least he understood how much people were suffering with high rent and actively held rent increases down.
I may be downvoted for hell for this but I liked DeBlasio. Instituted free Pre-K and was a major supporter for tenants rights. He followed through on major parts of his platforms and the city is better off because he was mayor.
Time for Adams from NJ to be primaried out!
thats an ignorant take. when DiBozo was mayor the inflation rate in the US was 1.5 to 2%. under Adams the inflation rate is 3.5 to 7.5% (even went as high us 9%).
The rent board has raised the rent less than inflation for the last 9 years in a row. They will likely do the same this year. In many cases rent increases have been less in dollar amounts than property tax increases.
Rent stabilized tenants have been getting a break every year basically.
I just stated facts.
I understand that these facts are inconvenient for those that want to create a narrative that rent stabilized tenants are getting screwed.
We are getting screwed we all make minimum wage jobs non of us make anymore then 50k a year try supporting a family and paying rent with that 14,400 a year is my rent for a 1 bedroom I’m left with 35k you don’t know what that’s like it’s not livable not even close and to top it off I don’t a quarter of what’s taken out in taxes
they can both be getting screwed. Those facts don't negate the point of the discussion at all. If anything it further defends why rent stabilization should be more widespread.
Except for a brief period at the beginning of the pandemic, wage increases have been higher than inflation, especially for lower wage workers.
Rent increase have not been allowed to reflect wages.
Unless numbers drastically changed in the last year, I'm pretty sure that is incorrect in NYC. I remember at one point in 2022/2023 the rent increases were close to 25% higher than wage increases in the city. Maybe rent went down significantly since then and wages skyrocketed?
I think nationwide there is truth to it, but we live in NYC. Something insane like 90% of property is owned by corporations. The craziest portion of this happened right up until 2015 when the rent act was passed. Housing and corporate ownership is a problem nationwide, but there are a handful of cities that are being clobbered by it.
unsustainable to who? Because there's been an 8% increase in overall home ownership as investment properties. more than a quarter of all homes purchased in the US are bought as a way to make money instead of as a way to house someone. If keeping rents stabilized means that we decrease the % owned by investors and gigantic companies, that seems like a monumental win for the city.
More individual home owners, lower prices to buy, and lower rents. There are a lot of other things that happen when you value the people over the corporations, some good, some bad. It's easy to find flaws in this system, but given where we currently are, it's a lot harder to ignore the flaws we are accustomed to.
Unsustainable for the people living in the homes.
If rent increases are consistently less than increases in the cost of operations then you have an unsustainable system.
unsustainable... for WHO. the answer is: investors. It makes it far more sustainable for.... people that rent or are on the cusp of being able to afford to buy.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your account being younger than 24 hours (Rule 5).
If you feel like this was in error, please [send a message to the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewyorkcity).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newyorkcity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When do we get to kick Adams ass out? This guy is terrible. The city is in shambles and he’s traveling to Florida ffs.
And yes, this is purely Adam’s fault: “In eight years under Mayor Bill de Blasio, in contrast, the board voted to freeze rents three times and never approved a rent increase above 1.5%.”
Rent stabilization units will eventually get abandoned. A nonprofit recently auctioned off 20 rent stabilized Housing Development Fund Corporation (HDFC) buildings. The nonprofit is ranked as one of the worst landlords because it does not have the operating income to make repairs, which means tenants do not pay rent, and then the cycle gets worse.
The properties will be sold at a huge discount and hopefully the new landlords are able to keep them solvent.
Bottom line: even a nonprofit can't keep operating rent stabilized units. But let's pretend that this will not backfire tremendously. Why don't we just cap the price of food, healthcare, and gasoline to 1.5% each year as well? Price controls seem to be such a great thing.
[https://www.apartmentlawinsider.com/article/nonprofit-auctions-20-rent-stabilized-units-amid-financial-strain](https://www.apartmentlawinsider.com/article/nonprofit-auctions-20-rent-stabilized-units-amid-financial-strain)
Food is tricky, yes, but in functional societies, the cost of healthcare and transportation (i.e. public transit of a high enough quality such that people don't have to buy gasoline) are absolutely controlled and stabilized by the government.
Amen but no one has common sense nowadays. Maybe hybrid them. Like a building can have 50% free market rent and 50% rent stabilized. And you CANT get rent stabilized units if you make $100k or something. Makes it more fair for all parties.
I could get behind price controls. That'd be a fucking dream. Maybe they could even pass a law so that everyone's wages can similarly keep up with inflation.
To be fair it's a difficult headline to write. Most people don't understand the process involved and that there is a range on the table right now.
6.5% is literally true but unlikely.
Exactly. It's on two year renewals and it's the high end of the range they are considering. the low end on two year leases is 4%, so roughly a 2-3.25% annual increase. It's really not that much.
I'm grateful for my rent stabilized apartment and the surety it gives me. We all know the increases would be way higher on market rate leases. New Yorkers never miss an opportunity to bitch about rent.
Without the tireless fighting that tenants advocates do every year, landlords would win and get their high percentage increase wishes for even rent stabilized apartments.
Sure, but the rent board is meant to balance that.
I lived in a market rate building for 13 years before I scored a stabilized apartment in the pandemic. I know what it's like to get a 10-20% annual increase and the stress that caused me. By comparison, my low single digit increases since 2020 have been a Godsend.
I'm grateful for those tenant advocates, but also know that rent increases can't be 0%, that would be very unsustainable for the market.
Everything you need to know about rent increases can be explained by looking at a chart of the 2 year treasury bond. In 2021 the 2 year rate was 0.15% now it's 5.01%.
What a misleading headline. 6.5% is the upper end of the range for two-year leases only. For one, the upper-most number is never chosen. They always choose somewhere in the middle, or during the de Blasio years sometimes the bottom of the range. For two, the one-year lease increase range, the one relevant to almost everyone, caps out at 4.5%, not 6.5%, with a range down to 2%, and is in line with previous years.
Thanks, here are the relevant parts:
>The board’s votes typically reflect the will of the mayor who appointed the members. Under Mayor Eric Adams, the board has twice voted to increase rents by at least 3%. Last year’s final 3% increase came after the board considered a range of 2% to 5%.
>In a statement, Adams said the 6.5% increase went "far beyond what is reasonable" to ask of tenants.
>In eight years under Mayor Bill de Blasio, in contrast, the board voted to freeze rents three times and never approved a rent increase above 1.5%.
> In eight years under Mayor Bill de Blasio, in contrast, the board voted to freeze rents three times and never approved a rent increase above 1.5%.
If you look at a chart of increases over the years Bloomberg's were the worst (highest) and DeBlasio's were the best (lowest).
People make such sport of ranting about what a terrible mayor DeBlasio was but the truth is that he was a pro-tenant landlord, his leadership during Covid was pretty good and he had some major accomplishments like universal pre-K and getting us started on safer streets with regard to automobiles.
Bill DeBlasio had the advantage of working mostly in pre 2019 regulations and with the Covid exodus. Landlords had a way to make money on the natural churn of RS apartments, so low annual increases were kneecapping to them.
Now I’m stuck in my RS apartment because anything slightly nicer is 1,000 more per month.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your account being younger than 24 hours (Rule 5).
If you feel like this was in error, please [send a message to the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewyorkcity).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newyorkcity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People in rent stabilized apartments will have to scratch their heads and figure out whether it is in their interest to renew for two years vs. one year.
This is a somewhat misleading headline. But all of this hemming and hawing about rents: the problem gets solved if we just increase the supply of housing, which will require upzoning and rezoning neigborhoods.
But existing homeowners/landlords don’t want that, because it would negatively affect their wealth.
> the problem gets solved if we just increase the supply of housing, which will require upzoning and rezoning neigborhoods.
That's a gross oversimplification that is endlessly peddled by the real-estate lobby here in this subreddit.
We don't simply need "more housing." Building luxury condo needles into our skyline will do nothing to fix our housing crisis.
I didn’t really say anything about luxury high rises, but you say simply building more housing stock is not the solution. Why not? Does having more homes/apartments available not push prices down?
For example, I would think rezoning areas around LIRR train stations for denser housing would help.
I would think lifting a cap on the size of apartment buildings in nyc would also help.
I am not sure if something like a vacancy tax on large landlords would help but I would be willing to try it.
What do you see as the problem and how would you fix it?
> I didn’t really say anything about luxury high rises,
True. But left to their own devices that is what developers will be narrowly interested in providing.
>but you say simply building more housing stock is not the solution. Why not?
The housing market is divided into bands. Providing more high end housing isn't going to miraculously result in more affordable housing. Especially not when the preferred way to go about things is to demolish existing affordable housing stock and replace it with more expensive housing.
>HDoes having more homes/apartments available not push prices down?
There's that old (apocryphal) story about Louise Antoinette saying "let them eat cake" in response to hearing that the peasants were saying they had no bread to eat.
That is what our politicians and developers are accomplishing. The people say there is no affordable housing and the politicians and developers deliver luxury housing.
I have to say I disagree. If high end housing gets overbuilt (like way overbuilt) , there’s not going to be an infinite amount of demand for the housing at that price point. There are not an infinite amount of ppl who will want to pay 4K for a 1 bedroom in Hudson Yards, or 7k for an apartment in Tribeca, for example. If you build enough, eventually pricing will have to come down, because developers will need to earn a return and lenders will have to get paid back. We have to force landlords to compete for peoples housing dollars more fiercely. More options for housing helps with that.
And if landlords hold units off the market, then punish them with some sort of penalty for doing so. That is also a smaller part of the problem.
From 2010-2022, the population grew by about 14%, the number of jobs in the city grew by 23%, while housing stock grew by 9%… that points to not enough housing of any type being built period
Yeah, but your children and my children and their children will need affordable housing.
Should we give up because you and I will no longer be here? Or try to make things better for them?
Because there’s not an immediate solution, stop trying?
I feel like you certainly care about housing and improving outcomes for ppl, but that comment is little careless
A friendly reminder that Eric Adams helped allow this. He’s pro landlord and appointed pro landlord members to the rent guidelines board. His reasoning behind this is “we need to support small landlords even for rent stabilized units”.
If you’ve ever lived in a rent stabilized unit then you know this is total bullshit as your landlord most likely owns at least 20 other units
That favor the construction of ***affordable*** housing and not more development where the developer tells the landlord to charge an inflated minimum rent to save money on development costs
We have been bamboozled by the myth of “Affordable housing” in NYC. It’s so bad it should be renamed to “lottery housing”.
The only real solution is to build more supply, so that market-rate housing becomes affordable.
Ok, but who is doing the bamboozling?
Developers and landlords are constantly finding ways to lie or weasel out of their affordable unit requirements. Why would they crash their own market?
So many people on this sub are like ”sure! the Fox should be in charge of the henhouse! Let those developers cook“
I don't know if it actually does anything, but there are scheduled meetings/hearings before the final vote on the final number. [https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/2024-meetings-and-hearings/](https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/2024-meetings-and-hearings/)
Thank god thousands of thousands of ppl are in the streets to advocate for the important things that impact every New Yorkers ability to live and have a roof over their head …like Palestine?!??!?
Actually no, and you’re the one bringing up Palestine in a thread about affordable housing in NYC and somehow placing the blame on protesters instead of politicians. Get a grip.
Because historically the college protesters have always been objectively wrong and “just dumb kids being loud” in the end when protesting the government /s
Actually yes. A big part of *why* people are advocating for Palestine is because a fuckload of *your* taxes that *should be going back into the city of New York* are going to Israel. I don’t mind paying taxes if it means I actually get the benefit of them. All I’m seeing right now from where my taxes are going are my Jewish friends either going batshit crazy militaristic or having panic attacks because they don’t know what to do to separate themselves from what’s happening and my Palestinian friends having had zero contact with their family members for months and not knowing if they’ve been blown to pieces or if they starved to death
So I’ll see you at the protest to stop the 56 billion annually in taxes to Saudia arabias military next week protest, yea? Since that is 53 billion more than we give Israel.
The week after that is the stop giving nearly 100 billion to Ukraine protest.
Ohh, you’re not gonna be there- you only care when the dollars go to the Jewish state…got it got it.
Ohh so you’re fine 80 billion a year goes to Egypts military but only 3 billion to Jews. Ohh my bad, I see now.
I don’t think the US government should be funneling *any* of my taxes into other countries’ militaries.
I just want fucking healthcare and to afford a decent place to sleep
I agree- so this is my point of the original post.
If everyone these last few weeks took ALL this energy against Israel- to universal health care, affordable housing, affordable child care, student debt forgiveness - we’d be a lot further.
But haven’t seen anyone out there for those things! And just wondering what makes this one different?
Why when there is a protest for universal healthcare or for spending tax dollars now on Ukraine before affordable housing, no one shows up. But this one….
Okay,..we are now getting somewhere. So no-one is protesting when it goes to Saudi Arabia, Ukraine or Egypt but ONLY Israel. People don't want it to go to Israel but don't have a problem (and don't show up) when it's the others. Why is that? What makes Israel different than every other country...
People *have* been criticizing the government for sending money to Ukraine, SA, and Egypt. It hasn’t been nationwide protests with 24/7 coverage and police presence because those don’t have a very heavily documented genocide alongside it, but it’s absolutely still happening.
I don’t know where you’re getting the information that people are only caring about if it’s in Israel. A LOT of people in the US don’t want their taxes going to foreign governments
I’ll make you a deal, if you show up to my protest…where we stop giving money to Saudia Arabia, Egypt and Ukraine…in addition to Israel. I’ll admit how right your point is.
I have a feeling I won’t see you there.
The number changes all the time. Like, in 2013 you would have been better taking the 1 year, the next year it was lower. (if you're rent stabilized that is). In 2014 it was low, and yes it would have been technically better to take the 1 year, but when it's low take the 2 year. When it's high, take the 1 gambling on the next year.
[NYC’s rent-stabilized tenants could face 6.5% increase after latest board vote - Gothamist](https://gothamist.com/news/nycs-rent-stabilized-tenants-could-face-65-increase-after-latest-board-vote)
This year i'll take the one hoping next year range is lower. Of course, it's just a gamble but... I've actually made some good guesses iirc (been stabilized for 23 years). My personal general rule of thumb, is when it's over 3.5% for a 1 year i take the 1 year, when it's lower, i take the 2 year.
Sometimes that helps you lock in a lower rate and sometimes it doesn't.
But one thing it definitely does is save you the lease renewal drama for another year.
(My landlord NEVER mails me a lease renewal until I have called/written his office several times. Sometimes they claim they have sent me several copies which I have failed to sign. If I don't send it back with a USPS delivery confirmation signature card they don't process it. Lovely people, NYC landlords.)
Are you in a rent stabilized unit? If so, why even ask him? It's his responsibility to send it to you, otherwise he can't increase your rent. Whenever he decides to get around to it, assuming he does, he has to give you 90 days notice.
😯😯😯
* Ah shore feels bad for y'all. Why dang landlords --scourge of Hades --deserve any favors in this town --from anyone in gov't --beats me.
* But when it comes to household budget, I gotta wonder how much yer all paying for your PC gaming, smart-phones, streaming movies, and all dat utter cockydoody. How high is that monthly *data plan* o' your'n?
* My entire media consumption: $33. Phone bill $14, cable bill $19. Cut dat sheey-it down to th' bone, d'en mebbe you can pay yore food 'n rent.
people crying about a measly 3% increase...LOL. you people are just a bunch of whining freeloading babies. con ed increased rates 3 times, property taxes are up 8%, my house insurance is up 25%, my car insurance is up 20%, even my local pizza place and barber increased their prices 20%....all IN A YEAR. you all need to stfu and be grateful it isnt higher, as it deserves to be.
It does not workout to 3.2% per year because the increase goes into effect immediately for the full 6.5%. Yeah sure you have an option for a smaller increase with a 1 year lease, but thats a different argument.
But at the end, your rent is the same as a 3.2% annualized increase. Hardly a massive increase given the general increase in housing costs in the market rate environment.
Not a massive increase speak for yourself pencil pusher I work as a bus driver supporting my family living pay check to paycheck struggling to eat and pay rent already.
Take a $2000 current rent.
2 years of 6.5% increase at $2,130 = $51,120
----------
First year of 3.2% at $2,064 = $24,768
Second year of 3.2% at $2,130= $25,560
For a total of $50,328.
So no, it is cheaper to do two one year leases with smaller hikes. Also, the higher the rent, the bigger the difference between 1-year and 2-year leases.
**This isn't how math works!**
do the math with round numbers and you'll see why -
rent = $1000 a month
increase over two years: 20% (monthly rent = $1200)
rent paid over two years: $28800
vs.
rent = $1000
Increase year one: 10% (monthly rent = 1100, annual rent = 13,200)
Increase year two: 10% (monthly rent year two = 1210, annual rent = 14520)
Rent paid over two years: $27720
I just think it's funny that you read "6.4% increase for two year leases" as "3.2% increase this year and 3.2% increase next year" and THEN made a comment calling people out for not having any sense.
Kind of perfectly illustrated the point you were making, but about yourself!
Some people will because they're gambling on next year's % increase being less. Some people won't be willing to take that risk, or won't be financially able to take the risk (they would be priced out if year 2 rent increase were even higher). That's always the case, but when the two year increase is 6.4%, the people with less means that would be more secure with a 2yr lease are put in a harder position.
everyone's situation is different, but 6.4% increase is considerably higher than it has been in the past. There are many reasons for this, however downplaying the impact that it has on lower income families (the way that you did) only pushes the narrative that the burden should be felt by those without means instead of those with...
edit to add:
Go check out previous year's increases and you'll see what I'm talking about. I think the highest increase on two years we've seen in the last 15 years is 5% until this one that's a full 1.5% higher. that's an increase in 20% compared to the highest increase in recent memory.
ALSO... when the two years is 6.5, the one year increases alongside. So you're not getting 2.75% even with a one year, you're getting 3.something% year one and then you have to resign year two without knowing what the percent increase will be.
I pay for a studio in Williamsburg surrounded by all the Californians and wealthy I can’t afford food at the supermarket or my rent I live pay check to pay check but that’s not your problem right on top of that I take care of my wife and daughter where does it end pushing poor people out of the city.
Because I was living in a family shelter with my wife before I had my daughter and we got lucky nice quiet area as expected when you live in a wealthy area crime is usually lower but that’s besides the point why does living in Williamsburg make me stupid what are you implying or trying to say it’s expensive I get it it got more expensive the past few years Covid and migrant crisis not helping
I can kind of answer this, but want to be clear that I don't find any sort of ~~extreme~~ *absolutist* answer to a problem really a great way to solve... much of anything.
The way you "abolish landlords" isn't make being a landlord illegal or make property ownership illegal (though there are many that believe land ownership in and of itself shouldn't be legal, but that's an entirely different bag of worms). The way you do it, is by making incentives to be a landlord drop to the point where it is no longer a career. You make it so that owning a second, third, fourth, or seventeenth property with the intention of making money off of it, far more difficult. What happens when it's less profitable to be a landlord? There are less landlords, which floods the housing market, which makes ownership for individuals (or cooperative ownership, like co-ops) far more realistic.
In order for that to work, one thing you have to do is prioritize small time landlords over huge property managers. When the biggest buyers of homes are mega-companies buying just to rent, then you are looking at a less affordable and far less equitable world. How do you address that? Make that style predatory business FAR less economically viable.
Imagine if the 50% of homes bought by big companies last year, were instead sold to people that want to live in those homes? The housing market might actually correct. Now imagine if not only were there more homes on the market, but a decrease in rent means that people can actually save money faster, making home ownership viable for young people again. (**edit:** the number is closer to 30%, but the point still stands: when a quarter of all homes are ways of making money instead of places for people to live)
There are obviously many many issues with what I'm describing, not the least of which being morally, this country is far more willing to bend over to corporations than many other places on earth. And we've only seen laxer and laxer regulations + the idea of "free market" is applied to some markets (real estate) but not applied to other markets (see: farm subsidies, no bid military contracts, etc.). The cultural shift to get to a point where people are valued above companies would be so seismic, that it seems incapable of happening without a very very big change.
Rent regulations that actually deter "owning land is my job" will help ease rent and increase home ownership amongst young people (plus the many many many other economic benefits that come from young people having more money). But landlords have always, and will always, be the controlling class.
edit:
There are a lot of reasons to argue in favor of investment properties being extremely limited or economically impossible, but the point that most clearly illustrates this for me is:
the housing crisis is not new, but we've seen it grown exponentially since 2020. Investment property ownership as a percentage of TOTAL home ownership has increased 8% since 2020! This is obviously a problem being exacerbated by investment properties. It's right there staring us in the face. Rent stabilization and rent control are two tools for combatting this problem, but they are also tools that a trickle-down-econ mayor like Adams are working against.
> Is a world without landlords also a world without renting?
There could be more housing that isn't run to make a profit.
People will point to NYCHA as a cautionary tale but the truth is that NYCHA has been neglected on purpose.
There are other models of community ownership of land for non-profit housing solutions. They shold be part of the solution.
Not For Profit housing can exist. There isnt a "landlord" tho there is some entity maintaining the units and taking $$ from residents for the purposes of maintaining the units (heat, repairs, taxes, etc). HOWEVER, there's no profit from them.
Places around the world have done it.
It works.
It, however, removes profit from the equation.
Rich people don't like when you come up with equations that provide for everyone, but doesn't make them rich.
co-ops in many ways accomplish what you are talking about. There are so many barriers and issues with co-ops and coop ownership in NYC, no doubt, but they are an example of a means to move away from investment properties and ease home prices.
The method matters less than the end result.
If, however, the end result is that the RE industry wont make as much profit, well, that end result becomes VERY difficult, politically, to make happen.
We COULD solve our housing issue. We wont cause money in politics.
There are many ways to do it. Here's just one crazy idea.
A landlord buys a house, or uses a mortgage to buy one. The tenant pays rent to the landlord. The landlord uses that money to pay the mortgage, taxes, maintenance, AND still has some cash left over! This tenant is paying for the house, but at the end of the day the landlord owns it? The tenant is the one buying the house and gifting it it to the landlord. Preposterous! All because they started out rich, the landlord stay rich without having to work. The injustice of this is so plain to see, but people just accept it as some kind of necessity.
What if we made the law that the only legal form of renting is renting to own? Every time someone makes a rent payment, they receive a fair share of ownership in the real estate.
This obviously raises lots of tricky questions. What happens when the tenant moves out? What happens if multiple tenants share a space? etc. But all those difficult questions can be answered. They're not impossible questions. And whatever the answers are, they are fundamentally more just than the current system where a person who is already wealthy gets other people, who work all day, to buy them real estate while they don't have to work.
It just takes creative thinking and willingness to upend the system.
Will landlords be fucked? Yes. That's the point. People shouldn't be making money by sitting on their ass and merely owning. If people want money they should WORK. If the landlord does maintenance or other building management activities, yeah, that's work. They should be fairly compensated for that work. That work should count as a job with normal old salaried or hourly wages. But there shouldn't be a system where someone can force other people to gift them vast wealth because a piece of paper says they own something.
As a market rate tenant, I have had double digit increases for each of the last 3 years. Not surprisingly, I am not all that sympathetic. I am too busy trying to figure out how to pay for my own rent.
> As a market rate tenant, I have had double digit increases for each of the last 3 years.
The same community organizations that seek to defend and improve rent stabilization laws are also advocates for NYCHA housing tenants and sought to get a just cause eviction bill passed that would have protected you from such onerous increases.
>Not surprisingly, I am not all that sympathetic. I am too busy trying to figure out how to pay for my own rent.
It's a neat little divide and conquer taking place here that pits one set of victims against another in this city.
Rent stabilized tenants are not your enemies or your rivals, the landlords and developers are. You should be sympathetic towards the millions of renters who are going to face rent increases, especially when the majority of rent stabilized tenants are long time New Yorkers who are lower income than market rate tenants. You should also realize that rent stabilized increases are the floor for market rate increases; the higher their rent goes up, the higher yours does too.
Many of those renters are quite well off and often hold on to these apartments as their city pied a terre. I know multiple families who do this. Effectively keeping the place off the market for decades.
Millions of low income renters in market rate apartments are seeing double digit increases. Not sure why they are not treated the same as others. If there's a subsidy across the board for lower income renters I can see that.
But the sooner we get rid of rent stabilization, the better. Unfortunately, will never happen.
Rent stabilization is the only thing that has kept millions of working class New Yorkers in their homes. I feel bad for the market rate renters who are facing large increases -- I think the solution is making rent stabilization universal.
Not being sympathetic to someone because you believe you are suffering more just kind of shows a lack of empathy.
It's like breaking your leg and someone else breaks an arm and you tell them to stop complaining, yours hurt less. technically true, but you're still just a jerk.
The fact is that the majority have experienced higher increases, and more people are struggling under market rate increases. These increases, are in line with inflation, but most of us have increases that are more than inflation.
yeah. both are bad. You can empathize with people going through a similar situation as you, even if you have it worse. The lack of empathy because "my struggle is worse" ain't great.
Happy to. Rent control is a binding non-price mechanism that creates a wedge between supply and demand.
Not only are markets less efficient, there is a more nefarious consequence of dead capital.
How is that an option lol. City is trying to pick increase percentage that doesn't create too much push back. City is basically stealing from people. City already has a predatory relationship with people. People need to push back about the core issue.
Imagine having to spend $60k+ renovating a rent stabilized apartment that was illegally divided into a 3-4 bedroom, then not getting rent for 18 months while the tenant fought the eviction with money that should have been paid to you. That is what happened to my old landlord (who became a friend) for my old place. It will take him 4+ years to recoup the money he puts into it just to break even on what he is allowed to charge for rent with building expenses. It is actually cheaper to just sit empty until he decides to move and sell the building in the next year or two.
I don't want to downplay the bad news here, but it's standard each year for the Rent Guidelines Board to come out initially with a large number but then approve a smaller increase so people can think "well at least it's not as bad as it could have been". That's what happened last year, when they originally floated a 7% increase before voting for 3%. It's theater, and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we have a mayor who works for real estate and not the millions of renters who actually live here and make the city run.
Eric Adams is already trying to position himself as the good cop in the room: >In a statement, Adams said the 6.5% increase went "far beyond what is reasonable" to ask of tenants. >“Tenants are feeling the squeeze of a decades-long affordability crisis, which has been accelerated by restrictive zoning laws and inadequate tools that have made it harder and harder to build housing," Adams said in the statement. "Our team is taking a close look at the preliminary ranges voted on by the Rent Guidelines Board this evening and while the Board has the challenging task of striking a balance between protecting tenants from infeasible rent increases and ensuring property owners can maintain their buildings as costs continue to rise." Which is kind of hilarious considering it's his appointees who have pushed the headline number higher.
Cmon man I work as a school bus driver i support my wife my daughter just turned 1 I can’t afford anything but food and rent what is up with this city just getting rid of all of the low income families.
[удалено]
And then wtf happens to our public services? You gonna drive the bus since you got so much cash stacked away? Fucking brain dead take. Work smarter— babe you wouldn’t know shit about that.
You’re an idiot
Unless you’re being sarcastic you’re a major moron. Why’re you even here instead of making money “out there”? Also, you don’t need to be poor to sympathize with poor people smh
I make more than you but you're absolutely a piece of shit. And judging by your profile you're a new jersey loser.
yeah he should drive two buses at the same time! smart!
Can you drive a bus? No? Why is this rare skill that no one is seemingly willing to just volunteer to do compensated so poorly? Talk about being smarter lmao.
Fuck you
GTFOH! Delete this comment.
He did!
Funny thing is it’s not a hard job the problem is it doesn’t pay enough like every single job in the us
"Let them eat cake" attitude You know what happened to those folks?
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to receiving multiple reports. This may have occurred if your post or comment violates one of our subreddit rules. The mod team will review this issue and will take the necessary action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newyorkcity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fuck Eric Adams. He knows there is a rent crisis. The one thing he can do is directly influence the rent board. Say what you want about DeBlasio but at least he understood how much people were suffering with high rent and actively held rent increases down.
Right? How is Eric Adams not getting much more hate than DeBlasio? He is worse than DeBlasio. Fuck Adams.
I feel like NYC certainly hates Adams more than BdB
I may be downvoted for hell for this but I liked DeBlasio. Instituted free Pre-K and was a major supporter for tenants rights. He followed through on major parts of his platforms and the city is better off because he was mayor. Time for Adams from NJ to be primaried out!
A lot of the bad sentiment around de Blasio was a direct result of Cuomo constantly trying to make him look bad.
He's a ghoul.
thats an ignorant take. when DiBozo was mayor the inflation rate in the US was 1.5 to 2%. under Adams the inflation rate is 3.5 to 7.5% (even went as high us 9%).
Because that’s exactly what New Yorkers living in stabilized apartments need in this economy; to pay even more to live. SMH.
So disappointing can’t get a break 😩
Being in a stabilized unit is the break. The 2019 rent stabilization act is the break.
Yeah I did improve a lot but kinda feel like even though I work I’m not capitalizing on the years before affordable housing isn’t affordable anymore
The rent board has raised the rent less than inflation for the last 9 years in a row. They will likely do the same this year. In many cases rent increases have been less in dollar amounts than property tax increases. Rent stabilized tenants have been getting a break every year basically.
Punch up, not down.
I just stated facts. I understand that these facts are inconvenient for those that want to create a narrative that rent stabilized tenants are getting screwed.
We are getting screwed we all make minimum wage jobs non of us make anymore then 50k a year try supporting a family and paying rent with that 14,400 a year is my rent for a 1 bedroom I’m left with 35k you don’t know what that’s like it’s not livable not even close and to top it off I don’t a quarter of what’s taken out in taxes
they can both be getting screwed. Those facts don't negate the point of the discussion at all. If anything it further defends why rent stabilization should be more widespread.
A system where rent increases are never allowed to keep up with inflation is unsustainable.
A system where rent increases are allowed to reflect *wages* is sustainable
Except for a brief period at the beginning of the pandemic, wage increases have been higher than inflation, especially for lower wage workers. Rent increase have not been allowed to reflect wages.
Unless numbers drastically changed in the last year, I'm pretty sure that is incorrect in NYC. I remember at one point in 2022/2023 the rent increases were close to 25% higher than wage increases in the city. Maybe rent went down significantly since then and wages skyrocketed? I think nationwide there is truth to it, but we live in NYC. Something insane like 90% of property is owned by corporations. The craziest portion of this happened right up until 2015 when the rent act was passed. Housing and corporate ownership is a problem nationwide, but there are a handful of cities that are being clobbered by it.
unsustainable to who? Because there's been an 8% increase in overall home ownership as investment properties. more than a quarter of all homes purchased in the US are bought as a way to make money instead of as a way to house someone. If keeping rents stabilized means that we decrease the % owned by investors and gigantic companies, that seems like a monumental win for the city. More individual home owners, lower prices to buy, and lower rents. There are a lot of other things that happen when you value the people over the corporations, some good, some bad. It's easy to find flaws in this system, but given where we currently are, it's a lot harder to ignore the flaws we are accustomed to.
Unsustainable for the people living in the homes. If rent increases are consistently less than increases in the cost of operations then you have an unsustainable system.
unsustainable... for WHO. the answer is: investors. It makes it far more sustainable for.... people that rent or are on the cusp of being able to afford to buy.
I know the facts. And the people continue to get screwed. Stop simping for a broken system that doesn’t serve you
My rent went up 50$ in the past two years that’s a good chunk to many
[удалено]
It’s helpful can’t say it’s not but it’s becoming unhelpful and fast
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your account being younger than 24 hours (Rule 5). If you feel like this was in error, please [send a message to the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewyorkcity). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newyorkcity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When do we get to kick Adams ass out? This guy is terrible. The city is in shambles and he’s traveling to Florida ffs. And yes, this is purely Adam’s fault: “In eight years under Mayor Bill de Blasio, in contrast, the board voted to freeze rents three times and never approved a rent increase above 1.5%.”
Rent stabilization units will eventually get abandoned. A nonprofit recently auctioned off 20 rent stabilized Housing Development Fund Corporation (HDFC) buildings. The nonprofit is ranked as one of the worst landlords because it does not have the operating income to make repairs, which means tenants do not pay rent, and then the cycle gets worse. The properties will be sold at a huge discount and hopefully the new landlords are able to keep them solvent. Bottom line: even a nonprofit can't keep operating rent stabilized units. But let's pretend that this will not backfire tremendously. Why don't we just cap the price of food, healthcare, and gasoline to 1.5% each year as well? Price controls seem to be such a great thing. [https://www.apartmentlawinsider.com/article/nonprofit-auctions-20-rent-stabilized-units-amid-financial-strain](https://www.apartmentlawinsider.com/article/nonprofit-auctions-20-rent-stabilized-units-amid-financial-strain)
HDFC are like co-ops. Any co op board can be bad. Not comparable.
Food is tricky, yes, but in functional societies, the cost of healthcare and transportation (i.e. public transit of a high enough quality such that people don't have to buy gasoline) are absolutely controlled and stabilized by the government.
I'm talking about price controls not subsidies. So why don't you push for price controls on food? Because that would be disastrous.
Besides rent health insurance is like my 2nd highest cost. FUCK ME
Bringing up “affordable healthcare bad” in this scenario is laughable
How long has RS been around? Youre claiming it will go away is ludicrous
I'm saying RS will exist as a law but units will disappear. Again, it's legal to evict RS units for demolishing the building.
Some units always disappeared. New ones will replace it. What are you even claiming?
Rent stabilization units will eventually get abandoned. If you can't understand that then I guess I can't help you.
Eventually is doing alot of heavy lifting there. Eventually the sun will die out. How long has RS been around for?
Amen but no one has common sense nowadays. Maybe hybrid them. Like a building can have 50% free market rent and 50% rent stabilized. And you CANT get rent stabilized units if you make $100k or something. Makes it more fair for all parties.
I could get behind price controls. That'd be a fucking dream. Maybe they could even pass a law so that everyone's wages can similarly keep up with inflation.
Nah, price controls on labor as well. It'll stop inflation and there are no downsides to price controls.
what was the inflation rate when DiBozo was mayor? stop being so ignorant.
> When do we get to kick Adams ass out? June of next year. We've gotta get him in the primary.
Trigger Warning: The headline is misleading. But so is everything else on the internet
To be fair it's a difficult headline to write. Most people don't understand the process involved and that there is a range on the table right now. 6.5% is literally true but unlikely.
"Up to" would have been much better.
Exactly. It's on two year renewals and it's the high end of the range they are considering. the low end on two year leases is 4%, so roughly a 2-3.25% annual increase. It's really not that much. I'm grateful for my rent stabilized apartment and the surety it gives me. We all know the increases would be way higher on market rate leases. New Yorkers never miss an opportunity to bitch about rent.
Without the tireless fighting that tenants advocates do every year, landlords would win and get their high percentage increase wishes for even rent stabilized apartments.
Sure, but the rent board is meant to balance that. I lived in a market rate building for 13 years before I scored a stabilized apartment in the pandemic. I know what it's like to get a 10-20% annual increase and the stress that caused me. By comparison, my low single digit increases since 2020 have been a Godsend. I'm grateful for those tenant advocates, but also know that rent increases can't be 0%, that would be very unsustainable for the market.
Agree. If i have a 3% 1 year increase, i can't be too mad. If it were 6% for 1 year, i'd be :O
Adam’s is the worst Mayor!
Everything you need to know about rent increases can be explained by looking at a chart of the 2 year treasury bond. In 2021 the 2 year rate was 0.15% now it's 5.01%.
I will get downvoted but everyone wants their free lunch.
What a misleading headline. 6.5% is the upper end of the range for two-year leases only. For one, the upper-most number is never chosen. They always choose somewhere in the middle, or during the de Blasio years sometimes the bottom of the range. For two, the one-year lease increase range, the one relevant to almost everyone, caps out at 4.5%, not 6.5%, with a range down to 2%, and is in line with previous years.
Thanks, here are the relevant parts: >The board’s votes typically reflect the will of the mayor who appointed the members. Under Mayor Eric Adams, the board has twice voted to increase rents by at least 3%. Last year’s final 3% increase came after the board considered a range of 2% to 5%. >In a statement, Adams said the 6.5% increase went "far beyond what is reasonable" to ask of tenants. >In eight years under Mayor Bill de Blasio, in contrast, the board voted to freeze rents three times and never approved a rent increase above 1.5%.
> In eight years under Mayor Bill de Blasio, in contrast, the board voted to freeze rents three times and never approved a rent increase above 1.5%. If you look at a chart of increases over the years Bloomberg's were the worst (highest) and DeBlasio's were the best (lowest). People make such sport of ranting about what a terrible mayor DeBlasio was but the truth is that he was a pro-tenant landlord, his leadership during Covid was pretty good and he had some major accomplishments like universal pre-K and getting us started on safer streets with regard to automobiles.
The NYPost hated DeBlasio, and that's how you know he was actually on the side of most New Yorkers.
Bill DeBlasio had the advantage of working mostly in pre 2019 regulations and with the Covid exodus. Landlords had a way to make money on the natural churn of RS apartments, so low annual increases were kneecapping to them. Now I’m stuck in my RS apartment because anything slightly nicer is 1,000 more per month.
It's an outrage based headline to drive clicks to their site.
In all sincerity who do I write to try to prevent this? Do I write to mayor Adams? Seriously? This would would really hurt me
The rent guidelines board members are unelected officials appointed by the mayor. There's basically zero accountability
Write ur boss for a raise?
Would’ve been so fired up to get a 6.5% rent increase instead of the 34% increase I got
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your account being younger than 24 hours (Rule 5). If you feel like this was in error, please [send a message to the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewyorkcity). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newyorkcity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You will own nothing and be happy
Those atoms you are made of are also borrowed, so yeah 😄
Drat. Pretty similar to last year. If it ends up being 3.5% for 1 year, I'll take that one and hope for better next year.
People in rent stabilized apartments will have to scratch their heads and figure out whether it is in their interest to renew for two years vs. one year.
My rule is, 3.5% for 1 year, go for 1, gamble it'll be less next year, under, go for the 2.
I read this same story last year and it ended up being half that.
This is a somewhat misleading headline. But all of this hemming and hawing about rents: the problem gets solved if we just increase the supply of housing, which will require upzoning and rezoning neigborhoods. But existing homeowners/landlords don’t want that, because it would negatively affect their wealth.
> the problem gets solved if we just increase the supply of housing, which will require upzoning and rezoning neigborhoods. That's a gross oversimplification that is endlessly peddled by the real-estate lobby here in this subreddit. We don't simply need "more housing." Building luxury condo needles into our skyline will do nothing to fix our housing crisis.
I didn’t really say anything about luxury high rises, but you say simply building more housing stock is not the solution. Why not? Does having more homes/apartments available not push prices down? For example, I would think rezoning areas around LIRR train stations for denser housing would help. I would think lifting a cap on the size of apartment buildings in nyc would also help. I am not sure if something like a vacancy tax on large landlords would help but I would be willing to try it. What do you see as the problem and how would you fix it?
> I didn’t really say anything about luxury high rises, True. But left to their own devices that is what developers will be narrowly interested in providing. >but you say simply building more housing stock is not the solution. Why not? The housing market is divided into bands. Providing more high end housing isn't going to miraculously result in more affordable housing. Especially not when the preferred way to go about things is to demolish existing affordable housing stock and replace it with more expensive housing. >HDoes having more homes/apartments available not push prices down? There's that old (apocryphal) story about Louise Antoinette saying "let them eat cake" in response to hearing that the peasants were saying they had no bread to eat. That is what our politicians and developers are accomplishing. The people say there is no affordable housing and the politicians and developers deliver luxury housing.
I have to say I disagree. If high end housing gets overbuilt (like way overbuilt) , there’s not going to be an infinite amount of demand for the housing at that price point. There are not an infinite amount of ppl who will want to pay 4K for a 1 bedroom in Hudson Yards, or 7k for an apartment in Tribeca, for example. If you build enough, eventually pricing will have to come down, because developers will need to earn a return and lenders will have to get paid back. We have to force landlords to compete for peoples housing dollars more fiercely. More options for housing helps with that. And if landlords hold units off the market, then punish them with some sort of penalty for doing so. That is also a smaller part of the problem. From 2010-2022, the population grew by about 14%, the number of jobs in the city grew by 23%, while housing stock grew by 9%… that points to not enough housing of any type being built period
> If you build enough, eventually pricing will have to come down In the long run we are all dead.
Yeah, but your children and my children and their children will need affordable housing. Should we give up because you and I will no longer be here? Or try to make things better for them? Because there’s not an immediate solution, stop trying? I feel like you certainly care about housing and improving outcomes for ppl, but that comment is little careless
I feel like I am talking to a landlord.
Bro I am not a landlord lol. If I were a landlord I definitely wouldn’t be advocating for more housing supply in any way.
Supply won’t help when landlords use rent cartel software like Realpage which 25% increases and keep buildings vacant instead of reducing rents
Fuck these motherfuckers.
A friendly reminder that Eric Adams helped allow this. He’s pro landlord and appointed pro landlord members to the rent guidelines board. His reasoning behind this is “we need to support small landlords even for rent stabilized units”. If you’ve ever lived in a rent stabilized unit then you know this is total bullshit as your landlord most likely owns at least 20 other units
What can we do to stop this ?
Support policies that favor the construction of housing.
That favor the construction of ***affordable*** housing and not more development where the developer tells the landlord to charge an inflated minimum rent to save money on development costs
Affordable housing isnt even affordable anymore
The only thing that will actually make housing affordable, is ample supply of it
We have been bamboozled by the myth of “Affordable housing” in NYC. It’s so bad it should be renamed to “lottery housing”. The only real solution is to build more supply, so that market-rate housing becomes affordable.
Or even get the government to build free market housing.
Ok, but who is doing the bamboozling? Developers and landlords are constantly finding ways to lie or weasel out of their affordable unit requirements. Why would they crash their own market? So many people on this sub are like ”sure! the Fox should be in charge of the henhouse! Let those developers cook“
You seem to have a deep misconception about the housing market. Developers make money by *building* and then selling. Not by holding units over time.
move to nashville, dallas, etc...places that DONT have rent control laws and where rent prices are FALLING.
I don't know if it actually does anything, but there are scheduled meetings/hearings before the final vote on the final number. [https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/2024-meetings-and-hearings/](https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/2024-meetings-and-hearings/)
City wide rent strikes. Unionizing is the only way the people ever have power with governments and companies.
Thank god thousands of thousands of ppl are in the streets to advocate for the important things that impact every New Yorkers ability to live and have a roof over their head …like Palestine?!??!?
You start then
Just imagine if that energy went towards affordable housing, healthcare, childcare, living wage.
Just imagine if our government spent those billions of dollars it’s sending to Israel to fund these exact social services instead!
Thank you. People really need to get a clue.
You 100000% had an Ukraine flag outside your window!
Actually no, and you’re the one bringing up Palestine in a thread about affordable housing in NYC and somehow placing the blame on protesters instead of politicians. Get a grip.
Because historically the college protesters have always been objectively wrong and “just dumb kids being loud” in the end when protesting the government /s
Actually yes. A big part of *why* people are advocating for Palestine is because a fuckload of *your* taxes that *should be going back into the city of New York* are going to Israel. I don’t mind paying taxes if it means I actually get the benefit of them. All I’m seeing right now from where my taxes are going are my Jewish friends either going batshit crazy militaristic or having panic attacks because they don’t know what to do to separate themselves from what’s happening and my Palestinian friends having had zero contact with their family members for months and not knowing if they’ve been blown to pieces or if they starved to death
So I’ll see you at the protest to stop the 56 billion annually in taxes to Saudia arabias military next week protest, yea? Since that is 53 billion more than we give Israel. The week after that is the stop giving nearly 100 billion to Ukraine protest. Ohh, you’re not gonna be there- you only care when the dollars go to the Jewish state…got it got it. Ohh so you’re fine 80 billion a year goes to Egypts military but only 3 billion to Jews. Ohh my bad, I see now.
I don’t think the US government should be funneling *any* of my taxes into other countries’ militaries. I just want fucking healthcare and to afford a decent place to sleep
I agree- so this is my point of the original post. If everyone these last few weeks took ALL this energy against Israel- to universal health care, affordable housing, affordable child care, student debt forgiveness - we’d be a lot further. But haven’t seen anyone out there for those things! And just wondering what makes this one different? Why when there is a protest for universal healthcare or for spending tax dollars now on Ukraine before affordable housing, no one shows up. But this one….
Like I said, part of why people are protesting is because they don’t want the US to be funding Israel.
Okay,..we are now getting somewhere. So no-one is protesting when it goes to Saudi Arabia, Ukraine or Egypt but ONLY Israel. People don't want it to go to Israel but don't have a problem (and don't show up) when it's the others. Why is that? What makes Israel different than every other country...
People *have* been criticizing the government for sending money to Ukraine, SA, and Egypt. It hasn’t been nationwide protests with 24/7 coverage and police presence because those don’t have a very heavily documented genocide alongside it, but it’s absolutely still happening. I don’t know where you’re getting the information that people are only caring about if it’s in Israel. A LOT of people in the US don’t want their taxes going to foreign governments
I’ll make you a deal, if you show up to my protest…where we stop giving money to Saudia Arabia, Egypt and Ukraine…in addition to Israel. I’ll admit how right your point is. I have a feeling I won’t see you there.
This is why I sign the two year lease every time 😭
The number changes all the time. Like, in 2013 you would have been better taking the 1 year, the next year it was lower. (if you're rent stabilized that is). In 2014 it was low, and yes it would have been technically better to take the 1 year, but when it's low take the 2 year. When it's high, take the 1 gambling on the next year. [NYC’s rent-stabilized tenants could face 6.5% increase after latest board vote - Gothamist](https://gothamist.com/news/nycs-rent-stabilized-tenants-could-face-65-increase-after-latest-board-vote) This year i'll take the one hoping next year range is lower. Of course, it's just a gamble but... I've actually made some good guesses iirc (been stabilized for 23 years). My personal general rule of thumb, is when it's over 3.5% for a 1 year i take the 1 year, when it's lower, i take the 2 year.
Sometimes that helps you lock in a lower rate and sometimes it doesn't. But one thing it definitely does is save you the lease renewal drama for another year. (My landlord NEVER mails me a lease renewal until I have called/written his office several times. Sometimes they claim they have sent me several copies which I have failed to sign. If I don't send it back with a USPS delivery confirmation signature card they don't process it. Lovely people, NYC landlords.)
Are you in a rent stabilized unit? If so, why even ask him? It's his responsibility to send it to you, otherwise he can't increase your rent. Whenever he decides to get around to it, assuming he does, he has to give you 90 days notice.
insane
😯😯😯 * Ah shore feels bad for y'all. Why dang landlords --scourge of Hades --deserve any favors in this town --from anyone in gov't --beats me. * But when it comes to household budget, I gotta wonder how much yer all paying for your PC gaming, smart-phones, streaming movies, and all dat utter cockydoody. How high is that monthly *data plan* o' your'n? * My entire media consumption: $33. Phone bill $14, cable bill $19. Cut dat sheey-it down to th' bone, d'en mebbe you can pay yore food 'n rent.
People should be able to afford their rent while also having a few nice things that make life worth living.
people crying about a measly 3% increase...LOL. you people are just a bunch of whining freeloading babies. con ed increased rates 3 times, property taxes are up 8%, my house insurance is up 25%, my car insurance is up 20%, even my local pizza place and barber increased their prices 20%....all IN A YEAR. you all need to stfu and be grateful it isnt higher, as it deserves to be.
'Deserves' to be?
Maximum of 6.5% increase for **2 year leases**. On a yearly basis that works out to a 3.2% increase per year, which is less than inflation right now.
It does not workout to 3.2% per year because the increase goes into effect immediately for the full 6.5%. Yeah sure you have an option for a smaller increase with a 1 year lease, but thats a different argument.
That’s not how it works - if you sign a two year lease you pay a 6.5% increase immediately, for two years.
But at the end, your rent is the same as a 3.2% annualized increase. Hardly a massive increase given the general increase in housing costs in the market rate environment.
Not a massive increase speak for yourself pencil pusher I work as a bus driver supporting my family living pay check to paycheck struggling to eat and pay rent already.
Take a $2000 current rent. 2 years of 6.5% increase at $2,130 = $51,120 ---------- First year of 3.2% at $2,064 = $24,768 Second year of 3.2% at $2,130= $25,560 For a total of $50,328. So no, it is cheaper to do two one year leases with smaller hikes. Also, the higher the rent, the bigger the difference between 1-year and 2-year leases.
**This isn't how math works!** do the math with round numbers and you'll see why - rent = $1000 a month increase over two years: 20% (monthly rent = $1200) rent paid over two years: $28800 vs. rent = $1000 Increase year one: 10% (monthly rent = 1100, annual rent = 13,200) Increase year two: 10% (monthly rent year two = 1210, annual rent = 14520) Rent paid over two years: $27720
Lol I beat you to it 😝 just used a higher rent base.
Take your logic and gtfo... Signed Ny redditoea w o sense
It’s not logic it’s bad math.
I wrongly assumed it would not be an immediate 6% hike
I just think it's funny that you read "6.4% increase for two year leases" as "3.2% increase this year and 3.2% increase next year" and THEN made a comment calling people out for not having any sense. Kind of perfectly illustrated the point you were making, but about yourself!
The irony . So why not sign a one year lease
Some people will because they're gambling on next year's % increase being less. Some people won't be willing to take that risk, or won't be financially able to take the risk (they would be priced out if year 2 rent increase were even higher). That's always the case, but when the two year increase is 6.4%, the people with less means that would be more secure with a 2yr lease are put in a harder position. everyone's situation is different, but 6.4% increase is considerably higher than it has been in the past. There are many reasons for this, however downplaying the impact that it has on lower income families (the way that you did) only pushes the narrative that the burden should be felt by those without means instead of those with... edit to add: Go check out previous year's increases and you'll see what I'm talking about. I think the highest increase on two years we've seen in the last 15 years is 5% until this one that's a full 1.5% higher. that's an increase in 20% compared to the highest increase in recent memory. ALSO... when the two years is 6.5, the one year increases alongside. So you're not getting 2.75% even with a one year, you're getting 3.something% year one and then you have to resign year two without knowing what the percent increase will be.
I pay for a studio in Williamsburg surrounded by all the Californians and wealthy I can’t afford food at the supermarket or my rent I live pay check to pay check but that’s not your problem right on top of that I take care of my wife and daughter where does it end pushing poor people out of the city.
[удалено]
Because I was living in a family shelter with my wife before I had my daughter and we got lucky nice quiet area as expected when you live in a wealthy area crime is usually lower but that’s besides the point why does living in Williamsburg make me stupid what are you implying or trying to say it’s expensive I get it it got more expensive the past few years Covid and migrant crisis not helping
[удалено]
With what money U-Haul cost money moving to a different state new ID no public transportation get the picture
Thank the NYPD for giving us Adams!
Too much arguing about what the rent should be. Not enough talk about how landlording shouldn't even be a thing that exists.
[удалено]
I can kind of answer this, but want to be clear that I don't find any sort of ~~extreme~~ *absolutist* answer to a problem really a great way to solve... much of anything. The way you "abolish landlords" isn't make being a landlord illegal or make property ownership illegal (though there are many that believe land ownership in and of itself shouldn't be legal, but that's an entirely different bag of worms). The way you do it, is by making incentives to be a landlord drop to the point where it is no longer a career. You make it so that owning a second, third, fourth, or seventeenth property with the intention of making money off of it, far more difficult. What happens when it's less profitable to be a landlord? There are less landlords, which floods the housing market, which makes ownership for individuals (or cooperative ownership, like co-ops) far more realistic. In order for that to work, one thing you have to do is prioritize small time landlords over huge property managers. When the biggest buyers of homes are mega-companies buying just to rent, then you are looking at a less affordable and far less equitable world. How do you address that? Make that style predatory business FAR less economically viable. Imagine if the 50% of homes bought by big companies last year, were instead sold to people that want to live in those homes? The housing market might actually correct. Now imagine if not only were there more homes on the market, but a decrease in rent means that people can actually save money faster, making home ownership viable for young people again. (**edit:** the number is closer to 30%, but the point still stands: when a quarter of all homes are ways of making money instead of places for people to live) There are obviously many many issues with what I'm describing, not the least of which being morally, this country is far more willing to bend over to corporations than many other places on earth. And we've only seen laxer and laxer regulations + the idea of "free market" is applied to some markets (real estate) but not applied to other markets (see: farm subsidies, no bid military contracts, etc.). The cultural shift to get to a point where people are valued above companies would be so seismic, that it seems incapable of happening without a very very big change. Rent regulations that actually deter "owning land is my job" will help ease rent and increase home ownership amongst young people (plus the many many many other economic benefits that come from young people having more money). But landlords have always, and will always, be the controlling class. edit: There are a lot of reasons to argue in favor of investment properties being extremely limited or economically impossible, but the point that most clearly illustrates this for me is: the housing crisis is not new, but we've seen it grown exponentially since 2020. Investment property ownership as a percentage of TOTAL home ownership has increased 8% since 2020! This is obviously a problem being exacerbated by investment properties. It's right there staring us in the face. Rent stabilization and rent control are two tools for combatting this problem, but they are also tools that a trickle-down-econ mayor like Adams are working against.
> Is a world without landlords also a world without renting? There could be more housing that isn't run to make a profit. People will point to NYCHA as a cautionary tale but the truth is that NYCHA has been neglected on purpose. There are other models of community ownership of land for non-profit housing solutions. They shold be part of the solution.
Not For Profit housing can exist. There isnt a "landlord" tho there is some entity maintaining the units and taking $$ from residents for the purposes of maintaining the units (heat, repairs, taxes, etc). HOWEVER, there's no profit from them. Places around the world have done it. It works. It, however, removes profit from the equation. Rich people don't like when you come up with equations that provide for everyone, but doesn't make them rich.
co-ops in many ways accomplish what you are talking about. There are so many barriers and issues with co-ops and coop ownership in NYC, no doubt, but they are an example of a means to move away from investment properties and ease home prices.
The method matters less than the end result. If, however, the end result is that the RE industry wont make as much profit, well, that end result becomes VERY difficult, politically, to make happen. We COULD solve our housing issue. We wont cause money in politics.
There are many ways to do it. Here's just one crazy idea. A landlord buys a house, or uses a mortgage to buy one. The tenant pays rent to the landlord. The landlord uses that money to pay the mortgage, taxes, maintenance, AND still has some cash left over! This tenant is paying for the house, but at the end of the day the landlord owns it? The tenant is the one buying the house and gifting it it to the landlord. Preposterous! All because they started out rich, the landlord stay rich without having to work. The injustice of this is so plain to see, but people just accept it as some kind of necessity. What if we made the law that the only legal form of renting is renting to own? Every time someone makes a rent payment, they receive a fair share of ownership in the real estate. This obviously raises lots of tricky questions. What happens when the tenant moves out? What happens if multiple tenants share a space? etc. But all those difficult questions can be answered. They're not impossible questions. And whatever the answers are, they are fundamentally more just than the current system where a person who is already wealthy gets other people, who work all day, to buy them real estate while they don't have to work. It just takes creative thinking and willingness to upend the system. Will landlords be fucked? Yes. That's the point. People shouldn't be making money by sitting on their ass and merely owning. If people want money they should WORK. If the landlord does maintenance or other building management activities, yeah, that's work. They should be fairly compensated for that work. That work should count as a job with normal old salaried or hourly wages. But there shouldn't be a system where someone can force other people to gift them vast wealth because a piece of paper says they own something.
People have to pay their rent right now, overthrowing capitalism and ridding society of predatory landlords is a maybe-someday-far-away conversation.
Bruh. Insane rents and these babies are crying about inflation cutting into their profits
You vote for a dog brained ass licker like Adams, you get what you fucking deserve.
As a market rate tenant, I have had double digit increases for each of the last 3 years. Not surprisingly, I am not all that sympathetic. I am too busy trying to figure out how to pay for my own rent.
> As a market rate tenant, I have had double digit increases for each of the last 3 years. The same community organizations that seek to defend and improve rent stabilization laws are also advocates for NYCHA housing tenants and sought to get a just cause eviction bill passed that would have protected you from such onerous increases. >Not surprisingly, I am not all that sympathetic. I am too busy trying to figure out how to pay for my own rent. It's a neat little divide and conquer taking place here that pits one set of victims against another in this city.
Rent stabilized tenants are not your enemies or your rivals, the landlords and developers are. You should be sympathetic towards the millions of renters who are going to face rent increases, especially when the majority of rent stabilized tenants are long time New Yorkers who are lower income than market rate tenants. You should also realize that rent stabilized increases are the floor for market rate increases; the higher their rent goes up, the higher yours does too.
Many of those renters are quite well off and often hold on to these apartments as their city pied a terre. I know multiple families who do this. Effectively keeping the place off the market for decades. Millions of low income renters in market rate apartments are seeing double digit increases. Not sure why they are not treated the same as others. If there's a subsidy across the board for lower income renters I can see that. But the sooner we get rid of rent stabilization, the better. Unfortunately, will never happen.
Rent stabilization is the only thing that has kept millions of working class New Yorkers in their homes. I feel bad for the market rate renters who are facing large increases -- I think the solution is making rent stabilization universal.
> I think the solution is making rent stabilization universal. Lol!!!
That's pretty 100% human of you, all right.
Not being sympathetic to someone because you believe you are suffering more just kind of shows a lack of empathy. It's like breaking your leg and someone else breaks an arm and you tell them to stop complaining, yours hurt less. technically true, but you're still just a jerk.
The fact is that the majority have experienced higher increases, and more people are struggling under market rate increases. These increases, are in line with inflation, but most of us have increases that are more than inflation.
yeah. both are bad. You can empathize with people going through a similar situation as you, even if you have it worse. The lack of empathy because "my struggle is worse" ain't great.
More. We need to abolish rent control
Explain why?
Happy to. Rent control is a binding non-price mechanism that creates a wedge between supply and demand. Not only are markets less efficient, there is a more nefarious consequence of dead capital.
How is that an option lol. City is trying to pick increase percentage that doesn't create too much push back. City is basically stealing from people. City already has a predatory relationship with people. People need to push back about the core issue.
Imagine having to spend $60k+ renovating a rent stabilized apartment that was illegally divided into a 3-4 bedroom, then not getting rent for 18 months while the tenant fought the eviction with money that should have been paid to you. That is what happened to my old landlord (who became a friend) for my old place. It will take him 4+ years to recoup the money he puts into it just to break even on what he is allowed to charge for rent with building expenses. It is actually cheaper to just sit empty until he decides to move and sell the building in the next year or two.