Rangel is going to cost me my rent stabilized apartment...

livetotravel

I think this is criminal and it's shit like this that will eventually undermine the rent stabilization system in this city. No wonder people hate politicians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11rangel.html?ref=nyregion

alafairnadia

hilariously, I had a GORGEOUS and huge (it had room for a queen size bed, a sofa, a dining room table, 5 book shelves, a desk, etc - two gigantic closets, separate room kitchen, bigger bathroom than I have now ... I could go on. and having a doorman is something I really really really fucking miss) $600/mo rent stabilized studio in lenox terrace. I loved that place. the bullet through the window, though ... not so luxurious. however, most of the folks that lived there were old folks - we had funeral notices posted weekly - who were all in rent stabilized/controlled places. it used to anger me that I knew judges, congressfolks, etc lived in the buildings on rent stabilization - wtf? I was scraping by temping at the time, the first white girl in the building on 5th ave, and really pushing to make ends meet while getting a lot of attention and crap (but also a lot of love, I'll be honest, from some neighbors and that hottie doorman (a lesson in 'don't sleep with folks who work in your building')) from my neighbors. after I got a permanent job and my lease was up, I gave up the apartment so someone else could get it. granted, bullet through window, and stabilized at probably $1k/month by then, but still - affordable for someone else who needed it.

in other words, rangle is such a self righteous MF and this just makes me angry. this city is expensive and that guy makes for reals money, not $30k scraping by. hope this news doesn't screw anyone but him.

livetotravel

and isn't there an income threshold of $175,000 per household that makes it a luxury decontrolled apartment???

daver

That and like fifty other rules he is breaking. Like for instance, how the fuck do you have FOUR primary residences???

Is that like the old yo mama joke? Yo mama so fat, when she sits around the house, she _really_ sits AROUND the house.

Or at least in four apartments.

-ass

lanciano

this (and gov patterson in his rent stab apt) just makes me SO ANGRY i could scream!!!
:x ](*,) :pukel:

the fact that Rangel still thinks he deserves all those apartments is the most unbelievable part of this whole thing. the fucking nerve!!

i have friends who just had a baby who can't afford to stay in their apartment and this guy who's worth at least half a mil gets FOUR cheapies?!! mother FIUSDHLSDHGLKSHLKDGLSKHLKHLGKHSHGER!!

alafairnadia

it's horrible. not kidding. I mean, seriously. I had an awesome place but when I could afford market, I left. I've been told (and sometimes wonder) that I made a mistake. however, I don't care. I think I did the right thing. I mean, I don't and never have made more than $175k but I also don't think that it's cool to keep a rent stabilized place if you can afford ... not to. these apartments are SUPPOSED to be for people who don't make enough to afford market. if you make something even CLOSE to half a million bucks a year, fuck off and get out. GRR. and I forgot that patterson had a place there - I knew everyone's titles (as in that guy, the dude in the city council) but obvi that shit changes.

sweet tea

why do all these yahoos have lower rent than i do??

alafairnadia

sweet tea wrote: why do all these yahoos have lower rent than i do??

right? my mortgage, even the way I've reworked it post-job-separation is still more than what either of them pay for a joint 3-4 times the size of my co-op. it's galling.

livetotravel

Percy Sutton has a rent stabilized apt there also....and Sutton is serious money!
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20070501/hidi-sutton.html

This is the typical bullshit of the old boys network at work! It simply doesn't pass the laugh test and it just helps to stigmatize all who happen to be fortunate enough to live in rent stabilized apartments - of which, just in case you were wondering, there are 836,004 in NYC.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/06/04/2008-06-04_stabilized_apartments_down_frets_up.html

alafairnadia

and, I hate to be the one to say this, but the argument of the old boys network being only white? lenox terrace is the epitome of "yeah, whatever!" I remember before I moved one guy wanted me to petition for a parking space (yes, they have gated parking. by the gardens. which are accessible toe tenants only.) and he was going to pay me for it. illegal? no. utterly unethical? duh. I didn't do it - never liked the guy anyway. but still. beautiful apts, great staff and old-timy neighbors are fun to meet and talk to. otherwise ....

whatchuwant

I'm one of the fortunate. I would have to move out of the state if they unstabilized. To Louisiana.

sweet tea

actually, i do have a stabilized place, but it started high

still the best we could find

carnivore

I lived in a rent stabilized place for 7 years and moved once I had saved up a down payment on my current place.

alafairnadia

i don't think there's anything wrong with living in a stabilized place. i just think it's fucked that places like lenox terrace are locked up by folks who can afford market. when I left, it was still a place that was reasonably affordable for manhattan and arguably safe if you were off the street level (which I wasn't hence the gunshots and detectives) because the doormen were pretty vigilant (though they once let me boyfriend, at the time, upcoming rapper ERN who looked the part and wouldn't play me his music b/c he thought it would scare me - I'm the girl who FLIPPED at pan pan at 135th and lenox when DMX showed up and was all "omg you have awesome!" - into my apartment without me saying no worries. but when we broke up they were very good at keeping him out (I attract stalkers))

in any case, I just think lenox terrace always had a good, safe rep and folks who've had family connections there have sat on those leases. on one hand, don't blame them - I know some people who have a place in bay ridge for $250/mo locked in for like the next million years and all the kids in the family get to live there while they're in college/on their first job - but these are working families who couldn't afford to help their kids get a market place in NYC. some fucker making half a mil needs to get the fuck out.

hamilton

If the threshold is $175,000.00, Rangel probably divides his income by 4 ,which is how many apts he has and this qualifies him.

The wonders of the new math.

hamilton

I think Rangel is a nut job ,which brings up the question should unstable people be allowed to live in stabilized apartments.

idlewild

Livetotravel wrote: and isn't there an income threshold of $175,000 per household that makes it a luxury decontrolled apartment???

You might be thinking of NYC Public Housing. Personal income per person (or combined, I forget) can't be over 150+ Grand too be eligible for a public housing apartment such as the ones on E.14th Street and the FDR or other luxury projects, or non-luxury such as Wyckoff.

hamilton

With rent stabilization $175,000.00 combined income is the break point for leases on apartments with rent under $2000.00 per month.

whatchuwant

So he decides to give up one. Whataguy!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON - Rep. Charles Rangel said yesterday he will give up one of his four rent-stabilized apartments, for which he has paid about half of market rate for more than a decade.

"The decision has been made to relocate as soon as possible," said Rangel spokesman Emile Milne, as the Harlem Democrat faced a storm of controversy.

Rangel's announcement that he would move out of one of his Lenox Terrace apartments, which he was using as a campaign office, came as a Washington-area watchdog organization filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.

A moving truck may not be enough, though, to protect Rangel from the legal repercussions of his longtime discount, according to Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, which filed the complaint.

State and local regulations require tenants of the discounted apartments to use them as their primary residences.

The center's complaint alleges that Rangel's years of low rent constituted an illegal corporate campaign contribution from the building owner, the Olnick Organization.

Said Boehm, "His case doesn't look that good. It went on for more than a decade, it involved thousands and thousands of dollars, and he had every reason to know it was improper."

If the FEC agrees, Rangel would likely be forced to pay back any discount the commission determines he received, and he could be hit with a hefty fine.

Rangel could also face an internal investigation by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, which can vote to take up the issue.

Just two days prior to Rangel's announcement yesterday, the congressman indicated he was unlikely to change his current living situation, which allows him to pay cut-rate rents for four adjoining apartments on the 16th floor of Lenox Terrace on West 135th Street.

"I don't see anything unfair about it," Rangel said last week.

Rangel is worth between $566,000 and $1.2 million, according to his financial-disclosure forms, and shelled out just under $4,000 a month for the units in the building.

FEC records show that Rangel's campaign committees have accepted $4,500 in campaign contributions from the building's owner, Sylvia Olnick, since 2004.

daver

The $175k income thing is optional, not automatic. The landlord has to file to decontrol the apartment, he is under no requirement to actually do so if he doesn't feel like getting more cash for whatever reason.

doctorj

Subject: Re: Rangel is going to cost me my rent stabilized apartment.

Livetotravel wrote: I think this is criminal and it's shit like this that will eventually undermine the rent stabilization system in this city.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11rangel.html?ref=nyregion

Rent stabilization is criminal and undermines everyone's living conditions, other than a lucky few who've won its lottery. Shit like this serves to remind people why it's wrong.

livetotravel

Subject: Re: Rangel is going to cost me my rent stabilized apartment.

doctorj wrote: [quote=Lovetotravel]I think this is criminal and it's shit like this that will eventually undermine the rent stabilization system in this city.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11rangel.html?ref=nyregion

Rent stabilization is criminal and undermines everyone's living conditions, other than a lucky few who've won its lottery. Shit like this serves to remind people why it's wrong.

Tell that to the millions of people who live in the 800,000 plus rent stabilized apartments in NYC. Maybe you should take this up as your personal advocacy issue. Start a non-profit organization with a mission to destabilize the lives of millions and throw then out of their apartments. You could use the classic rightist "blame-the-victim" approach, use inflammatory rhetoric to stir the blood lust of the masses to act out against those rich SOB's paying only $400/month in rent while the rest of you are at the mercy of the vagaries of the real estate market. Truth doesn't matter here in this struggle for our economic souls, only ridding NYC of this cancerous housing policy is important. Seek broader forums then our humble little bulletin board. Run for public office on this platform. Go for it. Throw the baby out with the bath water, Make anomalies look like every day occurrences. Misstate the problem. You can do it.

daver

It is pretty tough to try and use Rangel as an indictment of rent stabilization. His household income is almost certainly over $175k, and the landlord could have decontrolled those apartments anytime he chose. I have no idea about the allegations of favors and whatever, but it does seem a bit odd that the landlord would be willing to take in less than half of what he was entitled to in rent and let the guy have four apartments without a little somethin' somethin' goin' on.

caseopele

How dare someone like me be able to just barely afford to live in this city? I mean, people like me only have ourselves to blame. I didn't buy when I should have, why the hell don't I just leave NY? Seriously, it's not like I've lived here almost my whole life or that this is where my family, friends, and life is. Get us parasitic rent stabilized tenants the f*ck out of this city, so the really good people can live here. I'm sure someone will find a way to bus the poor people in so the rich folk won't have to do any dirty work. I for one would be damn honored to travel from far and wide to serve booze to the people who deserve to live in NY. The ones who can afford it.

This talk of rent stabilization being so awful makes me want to vomit. I work full time and work other odd jobs to pay my rent. And it's not $600, try over $1000. People want to get rid of rent stabilization? Tell me this, who is going to do all the dirty work, serve your food, clean your houses, nanny your children, wash your clothes, etc..., when people like me are forced out of this city?

doctorj

I know this is very hard for people in rent stabilized apartments to understand, but the price fixing does bad things to most everyone's situation in the long run. You may not believe it, but this is the basic economics of what happens when you artificially fix prices.

* landlords who cannot cover their costs do not maintain properties. Over time, this leads to deteriorating buildings in deteriorating neighborhoods
* removing a sizable slab of the rental market and forcing it to be let below market rate means fewer properties available on the free market means greater competition and higher rental prices for everyone else. Many rents would fall if stabilization were abolished and competition for tenants increased, and many people now in stabilized apartments could then afford a market-rate apartment
* invariably, the wrong people, who do not need it most, get the below-rate rentals and sit on them long after they can afford better, as their income rises; it's a very blunt instrument when it comes to progressive policy.
* the decreased mobility due to people staying put longer than they otherwise would negatively impacts the flexibility of the workforce and the economics of the whole city, driving wages down for some earners and costs up for other businesses. People who want to move to the city to work can't, because the free-market places are too expensive and to get a stabilized place you have to know someone or get extremely lucky. It's particularly hard on migrants and minorities in favor of white well-connected bohemians.
* Take a look at big cities around the world where there are no controls. People who move there on low wages find low cost housing on the free market. Maybe not in the nicest part of town, but they get by. Why would NY be any different if price controls were removed? Why do some people deserve a mandated handout to live in a nice neighborhood while others on the same income can't? Now look at a city where controls are stricter than NY, and where the disparities and difficulties of finding a place to live you can afford are even worse.

I know this first hand -- I was once in a situation in a city with extreme rent controls and limited stock, worse than here. Demand was sky high, supply nearly zero (and thus free markets prices way higher than I could pay) whereas all these middle-class people were sitting pretty for decades paying low rents. Supermarkets had sheets posted with people offering $10,000 cash under the table if you could find them a stabilized place to live. No one ever moved, so if you changed job or got divorced you were screwed. Being an ordinary wage-earning foreigner without an extensive grapevine or a bribe to find a deal, I nearly had to leave the country due to becoming homeless once my short-term work-arranged sublet expired, and would have, if I hadn't found a share with someone who'd been in their place a decade.

But I know none of you who think rent stabilization is doing you are favor are listening, and I'm wasting my time trying to explain it.

livetotravel

All Bloomberg has to do is stop sucking off the developers and give incentives for building new affordable housing units instead of allowing them to put up hundreds of those soulless glass towers that sell for mega-bucks.

My rent is also over $1000/month, I've been here for 13 years - and I'll be leaving this apartment when the undertaker comes. Why should I move, ever? So some conservative economic theory can be satisfied. NYC has failed the vision of modern urbanism, pure and simple - and affordable housing is part of that vision. At the rate NYC is going it will end up being a city of haves and have-nots, and the well-off will be paying big bucks for security to keep the have-nots out of your pantries.

sweet tea

although i live in a rent-stabilized apartment, i have to cede that there is some logic in doctor j's argument (made many times on this board, not just by him, i might add), and some illogic in the desire for lots of cheap housing without lots of big buildings.

but. is it REALLY that hard to find a rent stabilized place? maybe i'm just the luckiest girl in the world, but i got one without real effort, coming from out of town with no connections to anyone useful and less than a week to find a place.

the trick, of course, is that my rent isn't famously low, just stable. here's something i do think is good about the program: knowing what my rent will (roughly) be in coming years has made me feel confident that i will stay in the area, which has led me to put down more roots -- joining community organizations, etc. i do think that's a positive thing, and that while it should be possible to move around, cities work better when it isn't necessary to do so.

doctorj

sweet tea wrote:
the trick, of course, is that my rent isn't famously low, just stable. here's something i do think is good about the program: knowing what my rent will (roughly) be in coming years has made me feel confident that i will stay in the area, which has led me to put down more roots -- joining community organizations, etc. i do think that's a positive thing, and that while it should be possible to move around, cities work better when it isn't necessary to do so.

This is a fairly new conversion, right? And the rents started not far from market rate so the distortion is modest. How happy with the management are you now? And how happy will you be with them in 5-10 years time when inflation causes costs to drastically outstrip rent rises? It's when market rate and stabilized rate are very different that things get nasty.

If stability is the important thing, there are many ways this could be done without a city-controlled program. That's what futures markets / insurance companies are good at, and it happens in all sorts of other markets, e.g. your energy bill. It ought to be possible to negotiate a 5 or 10 year stretch with only small fixed rent increases, either directly with the supplier, or by paying an arbitrageur to take the risk of strongly rising price vs. the benefit of flat or falling price. You'd pay a bit more up front for peace of mind and stability down the track. CME now has a futures market in housing price indexes, so there's no reason the same couldn't be extended to rental.

Funny thing is: when I've lived in market-rate rentals, the rises have generally been *less* than the kinds of numbers I hear from the city. I might just have been lucky, but without intervention, landlords cannot simply put the price up drastically, because it's expensive to find good tenants. You get a de facto form of stabilizaiton naturally this way, as the larger jump in rent occurs when the apartment resets to market rate when someone leaves.

sprite

Livetotravel wrote: All Bloomberg has to do is stop sucking off the developers and give incentives for building new affordable housing units instead of allowing them to put up hundreds of those soulless glass towers that sell for mega-bucks.

They build luxury apartments because those are exempt from stabilization laws. The best incentive you could offer developers to build affordable housing would be to allow them to charge the market rate. Then more would build affordable housing, increasing supply - and ultimately lowering prices in the long run. Price controls limit supply; it's simple economics.

For the record, I lived in 2 rent-stabilized apartments in the same building on 3rd St for 7 years, so I appreciate the benefits. I couldn't have stayed in Park Slope without it. But I still think doctorj is right.

livetotravel

Ask residents of Stuyvesant Town about their "modest" increases since the Tishman Speyer and its partner, BlackRock Realty bought the properties from Met Life - I have 2 people standing in front of me as I write this who tell me that have been hit with 20-25% increases for market rate apartments. Obviously higher (triple) that which the Rent Stabilization Board authorized for 2-year leases on stabilized apartments.

Not the mention the other myriad evil associated with large equity firms taking over residential properties, a la this excellent web site...
http://stuytownluxliving.com/2008/07/how-stuyvesant-town-gets-its-groove-back.html

caseopele

doctorj wrote: * landlords who cannot cover their costs do not maintain properties. Over time, this leads to deteriorating buildings in deteriorating neighborhoods

Landlords of non rent stabilized buildings do this as well, and sometimes they do it out of greed not because they can't cover costs.

doctorj wrote: * removing a sizable slab of the rental market and forcing it to be let below market rate means fewer properties available on the free market means greater competition and higher rental prices for everyone else. Many rents would fall if stabilization were abolished and competition for tenants increased, and many people now in stabilized apartments could then afford a market-rate apartment

How many apartments are there in NYC? How many are rent stabilized? According to the NYC Department of City Planning's 2006 Selected Housing Characteristics survey, there were 1,980,247 renter occupied apartments. The numbers below indicate that $618,400 apartments were being rented out below $749, that's not a huge chunk of apartments.

GROSS RENT
Less than $200 - 71,367
$200 to $299 - 83,773
$300 to $499 - 144,948
$500 to $749 - 318,312
$750 to $999 - 451,107
$1,000 to $1,499 - 540,141
$1,500 or more - 320,175
No cash rent - 50,424

doctorj wrote: * invariably, the wrong people, who do not need it most, get the below-rate rentals and sit on them long after they can afford better, as their income rises; it's a very blunt instrument when it comes to progressive policy.

GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Less than 15.0 percent - 276,610
15.0 to 19.9 percent - 226,516
20.0 to 24.9 percent - 214,113
25.0 to 29.9 percent - 213,502
30.0 to 34.9 percent - 170,140
35.0 percent or more - 793,823
Not computed - 85,543

So, 793,823 people were paying 35% or more of their household income on rent. I highly doubt it's the rich people shelling out that much.

doctorj wrote: * the decreased mobility due to people staying put longer than they otherwise would negatively impacts the flexibility of the workforce and the economics of the whole city, driving wages down for some earners and costs up for other businesses. People who want to move to the city to work can't, because the free-market places are too expensive and to get a stabilized place you have to know someone or get extremely lucky. It's particularly hard on migrants and minorities in favor of white well-connected bohemians.

People don't move a lot in this city? Really? And like Sweet Tea said, living in a neighborhood for a long time isn't always a bad thing. You do become more involved in your community when you have roots there. The people who know they aren't staying long have no reason to become a part of the neighborhood.

doctorj wrote: * Take a look at big cities around the world where there are no controls. People who move there on low wages find low cost housing on the free market. Maybe not in the nicest part of town, but they get by. Why would NY be any different if price controls were removed? Why do some people deserve a mandated handout to live in a nice neighborhood while others on the same income can't? Now look at a city where controls are stricter than NY, and where the disparities and difficulties of finding a place to live you can afford are even worse.

All rent stabilized apartments are in nice neighborhoods? Sure there are some but quite a few are in the not so nice parts of town. NY is different from other cities and most landlords would jack rents up as high as they possibly could. People would pay them and the rental situation in NY would end up worse than ever. Because there would be no limit to what landlords would charge. I've lived in NYC for 27 years and had the misfortune to look for many apartments. I was amazed what crappy tiny apartments people would shell out good money for. A good example is the last time I moved, I looked at 2 one bedrooms for $1000. The first one was in the Jewish Hospital and was tiny, it was like a little box with 2 or 3 windows. No way was I taking it but you can bet your ass someone did. The second one is the one I'm in now, twice the size with 7 windows. Maybe my building isn't quite as nice but it's one block away and doesn't make me feel claustrophobic.

doctorj wrote: I know this first hand -- I was once in a situation in a city with extreme rent controls and limited stock, worse than here. Demand was sky high, supply nearly zero (and thus free markets prices way higher than I could pay) whereas all these middle-class people were sitting pretty for decades paying low rents. Supermarkets had sheets posted with people offering $10,000 cash under the table if you could find them a stabilized place to live. No one ever moved, so if you changed job or got divorced you were screwed. Being an ordinary wage-earning foreigner without an extensive grapevine or a bribe to find a deal, I nearly had to leave the country due to becoming homeless once my short-term work-arranged sublet expired, and would have, if I hadn't found a share with someone who'd been in their place a decade.

So you benefited from someone who stayed put longer? And NY isn't really like any other city, people continue to move here from other places regardless of the housing situation. Our population is over 8 million now and growing.

doctorj wrote: But I know none of you who think rent stabilization is doing you are favor are listening, and I'm wasting my time trying to explain it.

I'm listening to what you're saying, I just don't agree with you. Big difference


http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/acs_select_hous_2006.pdf