Affordable Housing - 93% of economists agree
I saw in the Times today that Ferrer has attacked Bloomberg on his affordable housing policies, and has proposed more rent control as a solution.
Now, at the risk of furthering my already dreadful popularity on this board and seeing Captain M hold a protest outside my apt, I figured now was as good a time to broach the affordable housing subject, which has long bugged me. Let me just say first that I am a renter whose rent has doubled in 3 years, I am a lifelong resident of the area, and I'm a registered Democrat, not some right-wing nutjob from the Cato Institute. However, the rent control issue in particular drives me crazy b/c it appears to be one of those policies that is very well intentioned but has the exact opposite results as what is intended. I don't doubt that people's hearts are in the right place, but I think their minds are AWOL.
Here's what I mean....
Now, at the risk of furthering my already dreadful popularity on this board and seeing Captain M hold a protest outside my apt, I figured now was as good a time to broach the affordable housing subject, which has long bugged me. Let me just say first that I am a renter whose rent has doubled in 3 years, I am a lifelong resident of the area, and I'm a registered Democrat, not some right-wing nutjob from the Cato Institute. However, the rent control issue in particular drives me crazy b/c it appears to be one of those policies that is very well intentioned but has the exact opposite results as what is intended. I don't doubt that people's hearts are in the right place, but I think their minds are AWOL.
Here's what I mean....
Comments
-
According to a 1992 survey, 93% of economists agree that a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing. Opponents include Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof, two prominent liberal thinkers (links below). Krugman, hardly a free-market radical, says, "That great sacred cow-- Rent Control-- is a textbook case of Economic stupidity. The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial."
Kristof says, "I used to live in Cambridge, Mass., which lifted rent controls in 1994 amid dire warnings of hardship. In fact, Cambridge enjoyed a housing boom that improved the quality and availability of housing. Henry Pollakowski, a housing economist at M.I.T. and editor of The Journal of Housing Economics (soon to be a major motion picture), found that freeing rents led to a 20 percent increase in housing investment."
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/6700.html
http://www.narsil.org/politics/rent_control/kristof1.html
Finally, from the aforementioned libertarian group, the Cato Institute (yes, I know they are a bunch of idealogues, but I still think they make a good point here):
"In cities without rent control, the available units are almost evenly distributed above and below the census median. In rent-controlled cities most available units are priced well above the median. In other words, inhabitants in cities without rent control have a far easier time finding moderately priced rental units than do inhabitants in rent-controlled cities.
"There can be no doubt that rent control creates housing shortages. For almost 20 years, national vacancy rates have been at or above 7 percent--a figure generally considered normal. Cities such as Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix, where development is welcomed, have often had vacancy rates above 15 percent. In these areas of the country, there usually is a surplus of housing rather than a shortage.
"In rent-controlled cities, on the other hand, vacancy rates have been uniformly below normal. New York City has not had a vacancy rate above 5 percent since World War II. (The state's rent control law, supposedly temporary, would automatically expire if it did.) In rent-controlled San Francisco, the vacancy rate is generally around 2 percent, and in San Jose the rate is 1 percent, the nation's lowest. Meanwhile, comparable nonrent-controlled cities, such as Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego, and Seattle have normal vacancy rates at or above 7 percent." -
To me, all biases aside, these seem like irrefutable points. Anyone out there care to refute them?
-
escap, did you leave something out at the end of your post? it dies after 'here's what i mean ... ' as though you intended to post a url or sometihng.
anyway, i am on the fence on this, as i am on many issues, but i do see your point. there is an argument to be made for ending it. however, i think it is an uphill battle in a city where rents are so excessively high. clearly there are those who are willing to pay just about anything to live in NYC, and i think most people fear that by ending rent control, all affordable apartments will disappear off the map. -
No, just took me a minute to get all my posts in, sorry. For anyone interested, here's the link from Cato. The more I read the more my blood pressure rose. Incidentally, I also read an opposing piece by a tenant's advocacy group but the market-based argument is to me overwhelmingly compelling.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html -
Is New York the only city in the US to have rent control or are there others?
-
Here's a brief history lesson:
www.tenant.net/Oversight/Briefing/appendb.html -
That's rent-control, but what about rent-stabilized?
Also, I don't know that ANY city is comparable to NY in terms of housing. I don't think any other US city is this dense. Or is this dominated by brokers. So its not exactly a fair comparison to compare NY as a sample rent-controlled city to sprawling not-rent-controlled cities like Philly (where my little bro pays half my rent for an entire second floor in a neighborhood comparable to Ft Greene on the gentrification scale) or Chicago (where an apartment is a "studio" unless it has a separate den and will run about 400-500 bucks). I've never been to any of the West-coast cities mentioned, so i can't really speak to their density.
I'm not exactly unbiased, since my apartment, which I found through a broker, is rent-stabilized. -
I agree that NYC is a special case. I don't really see how much rent control has to do with all the million dollar luxury condos springing up all over the place. Sometimes I get really frustrated and fume "how many freaking millionaires are there to take these places...you'd think they'd run out already!" But, it's NYC, so someone will always pay top dollar -- even if they don't have to because they simply don't know any better -- so landlords will always be inclined to want to make a killing.
-
Subject: Re: Affordable Housing - 93% of economists agree
escap wrote: I saw in the Times today that Ferrer has attacked Bloomberg on his affordable housing policies, and has proposed more rent control as a solution.
I actually totally agree with you on the rent control issue.
Now, at the risk of furthering my already dreadful popularity on this board and seeing Captain M hold a protest outside my apt, .....it appears to be one of those policies that is very well intentioned but has the exact opposite results as what is intended
I dont think you are a bad guy or wrong about many things, I just think you have lost track of your cojones somewhere to stand up for aspects of the Ratner deal you admit are foul.
I will say a little prayer for you, there is hope for you yet. -
I dont think you are a bad guy or wrong about many things, I just think you have lost track of your cojones somewhere to stand up for aspects of the Ratner deal you admit are foul. I will say a little prayer for you.
-
I figured some people would bring up the, "You can't compare NYC to other cities" argument. I wondered myself if it's NY's high rents that lead to rent control or if in fact it is the rent control that has led to the high rents.
But the key is that in other large cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia that don't have rent control, the rent bell curve is evenly distributed, where as in NY it is badly skewed towards the high end. This is because when such 1.1 million of the 1.7 million units in the city are regulated (sorry, 1997 figures are all I have), the rest of us poor saps have to scramble for the remaining .6 million units of housing, and we are squeezed. That's why it seems like it's always luxury condos going up--we're all desperately competing over a tiny slice of the pie while those lucky enough to be in stabilized rentals form a concentrated interest group to protect their prizes.
1997 data: "In Philadelphia, the nation's fifth largest city, the most common advertised rent, the mode, is between $450 and $500--below both the advertised and census medians. In Chicago, the mode was $500 to $550, also below both medians. Unregulated cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, San Diego, Phoenix, and Seattle seem to have almost perfectly competitive housing markets, with housing available at every price level but clustered at the low end.
"The two cities with strict rent control are glaring exceptions to this pattern. In both New York and San Francisco, advertised rents peaked at $2,000--more than triple the U.S. Census median rent for each city. The median advertised rent in New York was $1,350, in San Francisco, $1,400--both more than double the census median. More important, there were almost no rental units available at the low end of the market. In both San Francisco and New York, less than 10 percent of advertised rents were below the census median. Rent control in both these cities appears to make housing spectacularly unaffordable." -
Isn't part of the reason the rents are skewed to the high end in NYC the fact that we're competing with Europeans and other foreign nationals for apartments and homes? I don't think rich Europeans are clamoring in the same way for a place to stay in San Diego or Phoenix.
-
They've definitely reduced the # of regulated apartments since '97. Every time you turn around they're converting former controlled/stablized places to market. There was a big article about the development over on Greenwich in the West Village being converted to co-ops a few months ago and the deregulation march on the Mitchell-Lama developments this week.
Mind you, rent stabilization is basically only a bargain if you've managed to hold onto a place for years and years (The odds of someone being in a rent controlled place in this day and age is slim). My mom works for housing court and they're forever dealing with tenants who have gotten caught up with shady landlords trying to push the rent over the $2000 cap or place a family member in the apartment so they can charge whatever they want.
And yeah escap, NYC is different. I haven't heard many people I've met over the years talking about how it's been their lifelong dream to move to Philly because that's where everything is happening. 90% of the people my age in Philly are there because they can't afford NY yet it's close enough to make the jump soon! -
Candicissima wrote: And yeah escap, NYC is different. I haven't heard many people I've met over the years talking about how it's been their lifelong dream to move to Philly because that's where everything is happening. 90% of the people my age in Philly are there because they can't afford NY yet it's close enough to make the jump soon!
Exactly. These people are arguing as though the only difference between NYC and these other cities is the price of housing and the rent-control/rent-stabilization situation. -
Candicissima, you're right, they definitely have reduced the # of controlled apartments...then, just yesterday, the NYT published a report of the amazing housing boom the city has experienced over the past few years.....coincidence? I doubt it.
You're also right that NYC is a fantastic place to live, and that a high demand would naturally follow. But high demand doesn't lead to high prices unless there's a corresponding low supply. The question is, why do we have a low supply?
Econ 101: High demand and low supply drive prices higher. When you put a cap on price, the demand gets even HIGHER, and yet the supply gets lower, because sellers are disincentivized. The underlying cause of the high prices is therefore exaggerated and worsened, leading to shortages.
This occurred during the oil shocks of the 70s. The reverse, price supports for farmers, has artifically created massive surpluses of food in this country, hurting consumers. The theory holds true in reality. -
escap wrote: I figured some people would bring up the, "You can't compare NYC to other cities" argument. I wondered myself if it's NY's high rents that lead to rent control or if in fact it is the rent control that has led to the high rents.
But Philly and Chicago are sprawly! THere's more room!
But the key is that in other large cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia that don't have rent control, the rent bell curve is evenly distributed, where as in NY it is badly skewed towards the high end. This is because when such 1.1 million of the 1.7 million units in the city are regulated (sorry, 1997 figures are all I have), the rest of us poor saps have to scramble for the remaining .6 million units of housing, and we are squeezed. That's why it seems like it's always luxury condos going up--we're all desperately competing over a tiny slice of the pie while those lucky enough to be in stabilized rentals form a concentrated interest group to protect their prizes.
1997 data: "In Philadelphia, the nation's fifth largest city, the most common advertised rent, the mode, is between $450 and $500--below both the advertised and census medians. In Chicago, the mode was $500 to $550, also below both medians. Unregulated cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, San Diego, Phoenix, and Seattle seem to have almost perfectly competitive housing markets, with housing available at every price level but clustered at the low end.
"The two cities with strict rent control are glaring exceptions to this pattern. In both New York and San Francisco, advertised rents peaked at $2,000--more than triple the U.S. Census median rent for each city. The median advertised rent in New York was $1,350, in San Francisco, $1,400--both more than double the census median. More important, there were almost no rental units available at the low end of the market. In both San Francisco and New York, less than 10 percent of advertised rents were below the census median. Rent control in both these cities appears to make housing spectacularly unaffordable." -
I think it's silly to pretend that population and density have nothing to do with the NYC housing market, escap. This city is mostly islands, i.e. finite land space. For every let's say 2 people that leave, there are 5 waiting to take their place. There's always going be a shortage.
And it's funny that you mentioned that article on the housing "boom." I actually grew up in East New York, so I know the area well. My grandparents (paternal and maternal) bought in the neighborhood in the late 50s when white flight pretty much abandoned most of the homes for what would be considered peanuts today. The houses were sold about 5 years apart for somewhere in the $250Ks in the mid-90s. And frankly, the idea of someone paying $350Ks now to live in East New York (which of course is way better than it used to be) is totally laughable...and I'm sure most homebuyers feel the same. Likewise for the renters who see an ad like this. If there was some sort of chart that measured supply and demand of neighborhoods while also ranking them according to the media "buzz factor," we'd see how bad the problem really is. Landlords are greedily creating much of the froth themselves. -
Here's my question about the points being made in this argument: does anyone have any arguments based on causality rather than correlation?
For example, take the argument that cities which have rent control have higher rents and lower vacancy rates. What is cause and what is effect? Could not rent control have come after prices skyrocketed in an attempt to keep them under control? Likewise with vacancy rates. Might not low vacancy rates reflect a population with many members who have a relatively low, relatively fixed income? Not wanting to increase their expenses, they don't move too much, and they support policies like rent control which help keep their expenses under control.
Also, there's a lot of vagueness in most of these arguments. Cambridge had a housing boom after lifting rent control in 1994, eh? Aside from the fact that this could be explained by the economy in general improving over the course of the 1990's, what exactly does "housing boom" mean? Does "the quality and availability of housing improved" mean that the average preexisting Cambridge resident moved into someplace better, or does it mean that a bunch of high-prices apartments and condos got built (thus raising the number and average quality of housing) and rich out-of-towners (maybe suburbanites who want to move back into the now-gentrified city) bought them?
See, I think the building of high-end luxury units is what happens when you get rid of rent control. How exactly can allowing large rent increases possibly benefit the people who are currently living in rent controlled apartments? Does anyone really think that new apartments are going to rent for as little as old ones? This is why I'm not convinced by that "93% of economists" line. Economics tends to be about the abstract "economy", not about what's best for any particular group of people. Sure, policies which encourage people with money to move into an area are good for that area's economy. Government, however, exists to serve its constituents. The question ought to be whether rent control be good for the people who have to choose to institute it or not. I don't think that's what most economists are thinking about when they say that they're against rent control. -
Well, the theory to me seems iron clad. Reduced supply+increased demand=shortage. But, fair enough, here's some real life examples courtesy of Google. The below are all quotes.
Studies have shown that the total number of rental units in Cambridge and Brookline, Massachusetts, fell by 8 percent and 12 percent respectively in the 1980s, following imposition of stringent rent controls. Rental inventories in most nearby communities rose during that period. Similarly, in California the total supply of rental units dropped 14 percent in Berkeley and 8 percent in Santa Monica between 1978 and 1990, even though the rental supply rose in most nearby cities.
In Cambridge, following deregulation, investment increased by approximately 20% over what would have been the case if rent control had been maintained, according to a study by the MIT Center for Real Estate. Investment increases occurred across a wide variety of settings; both affluent and modest income neighborhoods experienced an “investment boomâ€ÂÂ.
A study by the Rand Corporation of Los Angeles' rent control law found that 63 percent of the benefit to consumers of lowered rents was offset by a loss in available housing due to deterioration and other forms of disinvestment.
A study of rent control in New York City calculated the loss in taxable assessed property values attributable to rent control at approximately $4 billion in the late 1980s. These distorted assessments cost the city an estimated $370 million annually in property tax revenues.
A study of rent control in New York City found that rent-controlled households with incomes greater than $75,000 received nearly twice the average subsidy of rent-controlled households with incomes below $10,000.
Similarly, a study of rent control in Berkeley and Santa Monica found that the beneficiaries of controls in those communities are "predominately white, well-educated, young professionally employed and affluent," and that rent control had substantially increased the disposable income of these tenants while "exacerbating" the problems of low-income families. -
I think the evidence is clear: rent control leads to reduced supply, which by economic law leads to increased prices. Now, of course those actually living in the controlled apts benefit from lower prices, but as noted above, studies have shown that most of these beneficiaries are not poor. Second of all, their benefit comes at the expense of landlords, some of whom are rich and can handle it fine, but also of others who can't. Either way, it leads to disinvestment on the part of the landlords. Finally, the benefits of those in rent controlled apts also come at the expense of the other New Yorkers, many of whom are poor, who are forced to pay inflated prices.
Guest, you said that policies should reflect the "people", not the interests of a narrow interest group. Well, it seems obvious to me that it is in fact a narrow interest group that primarily benefits from rent control, at the expense of everybody else. -
Oops, forgot to sign in. That was me (as if there were any doubt).
-
escap wrote: Well, the theory to me seems iron clad. Reduced supply+increased demand=shortage. But, fair enough, here's some real life examples courtesy of Google. The below are all quotes.
Cambridge (home to Harvard), Berkeley (home to the UC flagship), Santa Monica (a prime community in LA) and Brookline, MA (one of the richest towns in the Boston suburbs) had their rental supply dwindle. Hmm...maybe there were some outside factors. What could those be? Let's see: school expansion, buying up buildings a la NYU (which is also a big factor in NYC that you are ignoring) or new development that was more buyer than renter focused or even more demand to live in a prime community compared to an outlier. These are like no brainers.
Studies have shown that the total number of rental units in Cambridge and Brookline, Massachusetts, fell by 8 percent and 12 percent respectively in the 1980s, following imposition of stringent rent controls. Rental inventories in most nearby communities rose during that period. Similarly, in California the total supply of rental units dropped 14 percent in Berkeley and 8 percent in Santa Monica between 1978 and 1990, even though the rental supply rose in most nearby cities.
In Cambridge, following deregulation, investment increased by approximately 20% over what would have been the case if rent control had been maintained, according to a study by the MIT Center for Real Estate. Investment increases occurred across a wide variety of settings; both affluent and modest income neighborhoods experienced an “investment boomâ€ÂÂ.A study by the Rand Corporation of Los Angeles' rent control law found that 63 percent of the benefit to consumers of lowered rents was offset by a loss in available housing due to deterioration and other forms of disinvestment.
Talk about vague. Where is this housing stock? Want to take a guess they're talking about Watts/South Central? And besides that, it sounds like a problem with developers, not people who are able survive only with rent control. I doubt they'd be lining up if only they could build the luxury apartments they want without that pesky rent control!A study of rent control in New York City found that rent-controlled households with incomes greater than $75,000 received nearly twice the average subsidy of rent-controlled households with incomes below $10,000.
Hmm...who is making less than $10,000 in NYC? Mostly people in the projects who don't qualify for rent control. Do you have some actual numbers of total households to break that claim down?Similarly, a study of rent control in Berkeley and Santa Monica found that the beneficiaries of controls in those communities are "predominately white, well-educated, young professionally employed and affluent," and that rent control had substantially increased the disposable income of these tenants while "exacerbating" the problems of low-income families.
Oh, look a strawman! Only rich people are lucky enough to get rent control! Again, do you have some sort of total households breakdown?
Escap, you and your specious claims really crack me up. I'm starting to assume you're being facetious. -
escap wrote:
If you are making $10,000/yr in NYC it might be time to start thinking of moving somewhere cheaper.A study of rent control in New York City found that rent-controlled households with incomes greater than $75,000 received nearly twice the average subsidy of rent-controlled households with incomes below $10,000.
Hmm...who is making less than $10,000 in NYC? Mostly people in the projects who don't qualify for rent control. Do you have some actual numbers of total households to break that claim down? -
Alex wrote: If you are making $10,000/yr in NYC it might be time to start thinking of moving somewhere cheaper.
If you're making less than $10,000/yr, you probably can't afford to move. -
We can argue the fine details of any example I produce till we're blue in the face, but it's exasperating to me that you refuse to grasp/admit the basic logic here.
1. Refusing to allow developers the ability to charge market rates discourages development and investment. Are you with me so far? I can't imagine any possible argument with this.
2. Discouraging development and investment reduces supply relative to demand. This also seems to be inherently self-evident.
3. Reduced supply relative to demand leads to high prices. This is not even open to debate. It is an economic law, not a theory or an opinion.
End of story. For all the flaws in the examples I presented, I encourage you to do some research as well, as there are thousands and thousands of examples to choose from, and countless writings on the subject. Economists overwhelmingly agree, even ones that are critics of free market theory, and politicians have come around as well. The trend across the nation is towards deregulation, because both the theory and evidence are so compelling. -
escap wrote: We can argue the fine details of any example I produce till we're blue in the face, but it's exasperating to me that you refuse to grasp/admit the basic logic here.
Wait, that wasn't an argument, that was Candicissima refuting your claims and then you went back to square one without responding to anything she said. -
Isa wrote: [quote=escap]We can argue the fine details of any example I produce till we're blue in the face, but it's exasperating to me that you refuse to grasp/admit the basic logic here.
Wait, that wasn't an argument, that was Candicissima refuting your claims and then you went back to square one without responding to anything she said.
And this is an argument? I'm not going to address most of Candicissmia's points because many of them were just asking me to come up with detailed statistical breakdowns, and frankly, it's not worth the effort. I'm not exactly making a presentation before City Hall, here. If people are curious about the data, they should look into it. The logic is so obvious it's painful, but I was still challenged to provide some data. When I did, I was asked to be more specific. It's never ending. How about using common sense, or listening to others who actually have researched the issue? No, that's too much to ask for, instead we'll just trust the logic of "NYU causes a housing shortage in Brooklyn" because it somehow makes us feel like we're helping poor people, even though we're NOT. -
escap, are you an urban planner? I'm going to guess not which is why I'm skeptical of the claims you present even if you are quoting the "experts." I was a sociology major with a concentration in urban studies, so their arguments aren't foreign to me and I know exactly how they are flawed.
And I never said NYU causes a housing shortage in Brooklyn. I love how you read into things what you feel like. I said:Cambridge (home to Harvard), Berkeley (home to the UC flagship), Santa Monica (a prime community in LA) and Brookline, MA (one of the richest towns in the Boston suburbs) had their rental supply dwindle. Hmm...maybe there were some outside factors. What could those be? Let's see: school expansion, buying up buildings a la NYU (which is also a big factor in NYC that you are ignoring)
You're so right. My exact words were "NYU causes a housing shortage in Brooklyn" obviously. -
This is an excellent thread, but one thing that I thinks is missing is the perspective of the apartment owner in rent control. If you argue that the City government should ensure that low income people can afford to live in the City, shouldn't it also be your argument that we should all bear that responsibility equally as tax payers. Rent control and rent stabilization puts the cost of an enormous and complicated problem, housing, on the a small group of people: lessors with buidlings with more than a set number of units (I think that it is 6). For example, many people who own brownnstones in the neighborhood can only afford them because they rent out 1 -2 units at market rent and live in the remainder of the space. If the government were to regulate how much those owners could charge for rent I think that most of us would consider that unfair. Yet for some reason no one thinks that it is unfair for an owner of a 10 unit building to be subject to rent control and rent stabilization. If you are against government takings then you should also be against this unfair taking that is directed to at a small minority of property owners. It would be much more equitable if there were a progressive tax shared by all that subsidized low income housing.
-
Steve Austin wrote: Yet for some reason no one thinks that it is unfair for an owner of a 10 unit building to be subject to rent control and rent stabilization.
It is perfectly fair. I currently own an 8-family building in which every apartment is either RC or RS and have no problem with the current laws. If they were repealed, yes, I would reap a windfall, as I could raise all of the rents. But, I am making a decent return on my investment with the laws in place as is every other landlord in the city, even though they may bitch and moan.
Let me give you some background, as a real estate investor and landlord:
When an investor buys a building, he or she essentially is buying income and expenses. The income comes from rent, the expenses from heating, repairs and so forth. The price of the building is usually calculated as a multiple of the rent roll, which might be a factor of ten if the building is in good condition. So, if the rent roll were 100,000/year, the price would be a million dollars. I haven't looked at rates, but the downpayment would usually be around 30%, and let's guestimate that the mortgage would be about 50k/year. So if you subtract the income (100k) from the expenses (50k plus let's say 20K) you'd get about 30,000 profit on 300,000 investment.
It's more complicated, of course, but that's basically the way real estate investors look at buildings. SO, if the rent roll is low, the purchase price is low. If the purchase price is low, the mortgage is low, as is the down payment.
Rent laws don't mean much to me as an investor. If they were revoked, the rents on buildings would go up, and so would the prices. Anyone who says they are loosing money on a building because of the current laws is an idiot or a liar. They wouldn't have bought the building in the first place if it didn't make sense financially.
I'm also not sure I buy the argument about supply and demand, but no time now to write. More tomorrow.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds