Landlord rights?
Comments
-
Livetotravel wrote:
filmlover, I too thank you for the article, as it perfectly illustrates the way that rent control has created a NY for only the rich and poor. And I continue to be baffled as to why anyone would not connect the dots and think of what the cause of this unfortunate situation is.
And once again I ask, how will free market economics help these folks?
Livetotravel, your hilarious disparaging of "free market economics" might work something like this: unconstrained by laws that prevented building rental units from being profitable, developers would react to high rental prices by putting new rental units on the market; as more and more rental units appeared, their prices would fall.
I would continue, but I'm sure you are laughing and shaking your head at my fanciful belief in such things. Hahaha, supply and demand, how simplistic and naive! Yeah, that's all propaganda.... :roll: whatever. You're completely ignoring the fact that both Doctorj and I have proposed non-free market remedies, but feel free to just go on wrapping yourself in your anti-ideological blanket if it makes you feel better. -
Oh my blanket is very ideological. Join me in changing NYC's tax breaks for the developers. Under the 421-a program, the city's most popular tax-incentive program, developers of new multifamily housing in most neighborhoods are eligible for a 10- to-15-year exemption from the increase in real estate taxes resulting from the work, whether or not lower-priced units are built. 87 housing development projects in various Brooklyn neighborhoods starting at the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges and extending toward Prospect Park are eligible for 421-a tax breaks upon completion. But relatively few of the nearly 6,000 units expected will be affordable for low- or moderate-income people.
-
We appear to have switched topics from rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments! I hope that people know that they are two different things. Back in the day, there was more mitchell lama MIXED income housing! I also seem to recall reading an article recently about some city (Seattle?) that had no lower class and it turned out to be more of a problem than you would expect. I wish that I could find that article.
I'm with you LiveToTravel. -
Livetotravel wrote: Under the 421-a program, the city's most popular tax-incentive program, developers of new multifamily housing in most neighborhoods are eligible for a 10- to-15-year exemption from the increase in real estate taxes resulting from the work, whether or not lower-priced units are built. 87 housing development projects in various Brooklyn neighborhoods starting at the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges and extending toward Prospect Park are eligible for 421-a tax breaks upon completion. But relatively few of the nearly 6,000 units expected will be affordable for low- or moderate-income people.
It's worth pointing out that when you create a high quality apartment that isn't in your "affordable" category, and someone trades up and moves into it, then they vacate whatever they were living in before, allowing someone on a lower income to move in. In other words, whether or not a new place is deemed "affordable", each new unit makes the rest of the housing stock more affordable. The alternative, creating low quality apartments, is worse in the long run. I do not know whether 421-a is a smart or a blunt instrument (I'll take a punt on blunt) but it's clear to me that the popular obsession with building new "affordable housing", even if that means crappy materials and construction, is misguided. -
this deserves repeating....
doctorj wrote: the popular obsession with building new "affordable housing"...is misguided.
Pro-rent-regulation-ites, would you at least weigh in on the voucher idea, the idea of a tax credit, of incentives to develop more or to supply more rental units, i.e., some other alternatives to price controls? Or are you so wedded to the idea that you believe no other affordable housing measures should even be considered? Also, do you believe that building more housing stock in the city will put downward pressure on prices, or is there some clever twist to such conventional logic? If so, would you support increased development as a way of containing prices?
Also, would you care to provide some concrete evidence of a city or other locale in which the middle class has actually grown and the gap between rich and poor has shrunk following the implementation of rent control or stabilization? NY and SF provide great examples of highly controlled markets that have widening wealth gaps; which city serves as a counterexample to show that more price controls will undo that effect? -
I'm sorry but this bit from that article sounds absolutely absurd.
Firefighters who want to live in high-priced cities can work two jobs, said W. Michael Cox, chief economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. “I think it’s great,†he said. “It gives you portfolio diversification in your income.â€
-
I always on the look out for new places to buy. in tons of areas there is always a small unit building with 1 hold out. generally the landlord would let it goto hell and hope the tenant would move out.
they would try to buy them out. but most of the time they wont. -
doctorj wrote:
Actually, that really isn't true, or perhaps i should ask you to back that up with some facts.
It's worth pointing out that when you create a high quality apartment that isn't in your "affordable" category, and someone trades up and moves into it, then they vacate whatever they were living in before, allowing someone on a lower income to move in. In other words, whether or not a new place is deemed "affordable", each new unit makes the rest of the housing stock more affordable.
When you move out of your affordable "rent stabalized" apartment, the landlord gets to do a little bit of work on it and raise the rent making the apartment unaffordable to the rest of the neighborhood. Go take a look at what is happening in Crown Heights, Bed Sty or even Sunset Park or the South Slope where I live. These are cheap apartments for ME, but not cheap for the existing established community.
Where do you think that poor people go when they are forced out of gentrified neighborhoods and why do you assume that they can afford transportation to get into the city on a minimum wage from places like Rockaway beach where the poor are dumped (that won't last long since the rich have discovered new undeveloped beach front property) and where the cops and firefighters who do live in the city are able to afford a house? Who do you think used to live in Park Slope and Prospect Heights before it was "gentrified?". If your theory was true, they would still be there. They are gone. I saw them dissapear. -
doctorj wrote: I do not know whether 421-a is a smart or a blunt instrument (I'll take a punt on blunt) but it's clear to me that the popular obsession with building new "affordable housing", even if that means crappy materials and construction, is misguided..
Part II. This is often true when housing for the poor is built but does not apply to mixed income housing. Since not all of the units are built for the middle class or poor (there is one brand new upscale building being finished in Tribeca right now with about 10 units for the Middle Class), the buildings are not the kind of shoddy projects that you are imagining. -
I think the key point here is that the availability of affordable housing is centrally determined by the overall supply of housing stock, not the nature of the stock itself. To use an exaggerated example to illustrate, suppose two million luxury rental units were built next year, each of which using the most expensive materials, equipped with gyms, swimming pools, roofdecks, etc., all of them built to target the super rich. Since this would result in a de facto glut, prices would plummet and housing would be far, far more affordable than it is today. Conversely, if only a very small number of low cost, "affordable" rentals were built, prices across the city would skyrocket. The key is the overall supply, not the nature of this unit or that. Hence, the best way to keep a lid on prices is to encourage an increase in the supply, and any policy that constrains the supply will drive prices up.
Mind you, some policies that constrain supply and drive prices up are worth keeping. For example, we could make housing affordable for everyone if we just gave up the concept of height restrictions or zoning. Allow developers to put apartments on every square foot of the city and build as many towers as they liked, and 1,200 sq ft 2BRs would be renting for $600/month. But it's not worth it because quality of life also counts, and in addition many people who had invested in their houses as a retirement nest egg would be wiped out. So a price collapse is not necessarily our goal, and achieving a balance is worthy of an intelligent conversation. But let's at LEAST be clear as to what causes what effect. -
filmlover44 wrote: [quote=doctorj]
Actually, that really isn't true, or perhaps i should ask you to back that up with some facts.
It's worth pointing out that when you create a high quality apartment that isn't in your "affordable" category, and someone trades up and moves into it, then they vacate whatever they were living in before, allowing someone on a lower income to move in. In other words, whether or not a new place is deemed "affordable", each new unit makes the rest of the housing stock more affordable.
When you move out of your affordable "rent stabalized" apartment, the landlord gets to do a little bit of work on it and raise the rent making the apartment unaffordable to the rest of the neighborhood. Go take a look at what is happening in Crown Heights, Bed Sty or even Sunset Park or the South Slope where I live. These are cheap apartments for ME, but not cheap for the existing established community.
Where do you think that poor people go when they are forced out of gentrified neighborhoods and why do you assume that they can afford transportation to get into the city on a minimum wage from places like Rockaway beach where the poor are dumped (that won't last long since the rich have discovered new undeveloped beach front property) and where the cops and firefighters who do live in the city are able to afford a house? Who do you think used to live in Park Slope and Prospect Heights before it was "gentrified?". If your theory was true, they would still be there. They are gone. I saw them dissapear.
Trur, true - The owner can raise the rent by 17.25%! -
armchair_warrior wrote: I always on the look out for new places to buy. in tons of areas there is always a small unit building with 1 hold out. generally the landlord would let it goto hell and hope the tenant would move out.
Otherwise known as predatory purchasing practices - a very virulent form of development.
they would try to buy them out. but most of the time they wont.
It's one of the reasons why there are approximately 50,000 warehoused apartments in this city. -
** Who do you think used to live in Park Slope and Prospect Heights before it was "gentrified?". ..... They are gone. I saw them disappear. ***
This is a very interesting . I saw them disappear as well.
I find it somewhat sickening how many people i perceive to be
"new to the hood", well to do, yuppie types who work on wall st or whatever complaining about the affordability of the neighborhood.
Never once do they acknowledge that the poor were displaced for them. -
And to do due diligence to escap's tax credit solution discussion ( a negligible benefit to the working poor) here is a little blurb about another failed attempt in NY to get such a program - a reminder that nothing significant ever happens in Albany.
March 26, 2007
Metro Briefing | New York: Manhattan: Tax Credit For Renters
By SEWELL CHAN; COMPILED BY JOHN SULLIVAN
A pair of bills introduced in the State Senate and Assembly would provide an estimated 1.1 million New York City households with an annual $300 rent credit on their city personal income taxes. The city would absorb the cost, $261 million a year. The City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, proposed the credit on Feb. 15, but it requires the approval of state lawmakers. Flanked by tenant advocates and politicians at a City Hall news conference yesterday, Ms. Quinn said that two-thirds of city residents were renters and that they deserved relief similar to the $400 rebate on property taxes that city homeowners have received each year since 2004. Individual renters with incomes of less than $43,000 and families with incomes of up to $75,000 would be eligible for the credit. Where roommates split the rent, the credit would be evenly divided among them unless they agreed on a different arrangement. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has not said whether he supports the proposal. SEWELL CHAN
I believe California, Maryland and New Jersey actually have such programs. -
Wait, are you saying you would support such a tax credit? If so, then at least we're making progress!!
Would you support a policy that went like this: let's say you live in a place with a market rate of $2000/month but pay $1000/month. In exchange for allowing the landlord to charge the market rate, the city credits you $1000/month. Hence, your rent burden is completely unaffected, no one has to move, no one "disappears" from the neighborhood, the little guy is saved, diversity is maintained. At the same time, because landlords now know they can charge market rates, they supply more rental units into the market, bringing down the price of rentals overall and relieving the terrible skew between rich and poor that exists today. The middle class could return to the city, and it would always be sunny and pleasant even in the winter. The $ for the program comes from the tens of billions of $ that would be gained via the elimination of rent control. A win-win. (yes, i know it's more complicated than this, but guess what so is r.s.)
Any chance that we've achieved the long awaited breakthrough? [-o< If so, I've got my letter to Albany drafted and ready for your signature!:) -
filmlover44 wrote:
When poor people are forced out of gentrifying neighborhoods, they move to a place where the supply balances the demand at the price they can afford. People are only forced out of gentrifying neighborhoods because the supply isn't keeping up with the demand. They move somewhere that isn't landmarked and where rental supply isn't so constrained by stabilization and where there's significant new construction going on.
Where do you think that poor people go when they are forced out of gentrified neighborhoods
There are only two ways to keep prices low in a neighborhood in the long term, as long as population continues to increase: reduce demand by making it e.g. an uglier place to live, increasing the crime rate, entering a depression, closing down services, etc., or increase the supply by bringing more rental units to market. The mistake you're making is to think that rent stabilization is a way to keep poor people in the neighborhood, whereas in actual fact in the long term it has the opposite effect. Because of the lack of supply and lack of liquidity that stabilization promotes, all you end up with is a few elderly hold-outs, rather than a dynamic slice of ordinary working class people of all ages. -
escap wrote: Wait, are you saying you would support such a tax credit? If so, then at least we're making progress!!
escap, my Brooklyn compañero, your solution seems to show an attention to the material conditions of people's lives, as well as an understanding of class in terms of differing economic relations of production, and a view of history according to which class struggle. I think you get that the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change. In fact your solution shows a sympathy for the working class.
Would you support a policy that went like this: let's say you live in a place with a market rate of $2000/month but pay $1000/month. In exchange for allowing the landlord to charge the market rate, the city credits you $1000/month. Hence, your rent burden is completely unaffected, no one has to move, no one "disappears" from the neighborhood, the little guy is saved, diversity is maintained. At the same time, because landlords now know they can charge market rates, they supply more rental units into the market, bringing down the price of rentals overall and relieving the terrible skew between rich and poor that exists today. The middle class could return to the city, and it would always be sunny and pleasant even in the winter. The $ for the program comes from the tens of billions of $ that would be gained via the elimination of rent control. A win-win. (yes, i know it's more complicated than this, but guess what so is r.s.)
Any chance that we've achieved the long awaited breakthrough? [-o< If so, I've got my letter to Albany drafted and ready for your signature!:)
Your just an old socialist at heart aren't you. :shock: Marx would be proud.
-
When poor people are forced out of neighborhoods like Park Slope, they are forced into high crime areas where the poor are concentrated and also where transportation is limited (and therefore it is hard to get to work). Think Red Hook before it became "hot".
I'm curious as to why you think that this is a good thing?
When poor people are forced out of neighborhoods like Park Slope, the neighborhood loses some of it's culture and character and diversity.
I'm curious as to why you think that this is a good thing?doctorj wrote:
Is this an opinion or do you have some legitimate facts to back this up?
The mistake you're making is to think that rent stabilization is a way to keep poor people in the neighborhood, whereas in actual fact in the long term it has the opposite effect. Because of the lack of supply and lack of liquidity that stabilization promotes, all you end up with is a few elderly hold-outs, rather than a dynamic slice of ordinary working class people of all ages. -
Garfunky wrote: ** Who do you think used to live in Park Slope and Prospect Heights before it was "gentrified?". ..... They are gone. I saw them disappear. ***
I'm guessing that they don't know what the neighborhood used to be like. They think that it's always been this white haven for the upper middle class.
This is a very interesting . I saw them disappear as well.
I find it somewhat sickening how many people i perceive to be
"new to the hood", well to do, yuppie types who work on wall st or whatever complaining about the affordability of the neighborhood.
Never once do they acknowledge that the poor were displaced for them. -
Livetotravel wrote:
Can we all hold hands and sing Kum Bah Ya now?
escap, my Brooklyn compañero, your solution seems to show an attention to the material conditions of people's lives, as well as an understanding of class in terms of differing economic relations of production, and a view of history according to which class struggle. I think you get that the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change. In fact your solution shows a sympathy for the working class.
Your just an old socialist at heart aren't you. :shock: Marx would be proud. -
filmlover44 wrote: [quote=Livetotravel]
Can we all hold hands and sing Kum Bah Ya now?
escap, my Brooklyn compañero, your solution seems to show an attention to the material conditions of people's lives, as well as an understanding of class in terms of differing economic relations of production, and a view of history according to which class struggle. I think you get that the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change. In fact your solution shows a sympathy for the working class.
Your just an old socialist at heart aren't you. :shock: Marx would be proud.
How about this instead?
Just as the soft rains fill the streams,
pour into the rivers and join together in the oceans,
so may the power of every moment of your goodness
flow forth to awaken and heal all beings,
Those here now, those gone before, those yet to come.
By the power of every moment of your goodness
May your heart's wishes be soon fulfilled
as completely shining as the bright full moon,
as magically as by a wish-fulfilling gem.
By the power of every moment of your goodness
May all dangers be averted and all disease be gone.
May no obstacle come across your way.
May you enjoy fulfillment and long life.
For all in whose heart dwells respect,
who follow the wisdom and compassion, of the Way,
May your life prosper in the four blessings
of old age, beauty, happiness and strength. -
doctorj wrote: [quote=Newsome]Can we agree that for the revocation of rent stabilization to level out rental pricing people must move out of these apartments, or many of them? and if not out of the city entirely, then at least out of the desirable neighborhoods?
I don't see why people would necessarily have to move in order for rental pricing to even out. Some people are able to afford much more than the stabilized pricing they're currently paying, and some people are under severe stress because they're paying artificially high market rates. In both cases, the price can even out without anyone physically moving. And has been noted before: the current system is a disincentive to increasing supply, and demand outstripping supply is what causes high prices.Newsome wrote: How many rent stabilized apartments do you really think are sitting empty in the hope that it will collapse?
It would be interesting to find out the numbers. Anecdotally we have the OP, and a lot of properties that come on the market with one remaining tenant.
This implies that there are all these developers holding back on building because of the repressive rent stabilization laws. Are developers required to offer a certain amount of stabilized apartments per building? -
Newsome wrote: This implies that there are all these developers holding back on building because of the repressive rent stabilization laws.
What a stretch.
/yawn/
Now that Livetotravel and I have made peace and solved the city's housing problems, I'm going to take a nap. -
escap wrote: [quote=Newsome]This implies that there are all these developers holding back on building because of the repressive rent stabilization laws.
What a stretch.
agreed. -
Subject: Rent stabilized apartments come with the business.
Rent stabilized apartments come with the business. I see them, positively, as a way a landlord must give back to the city. Give someone a home who would probably be on the street unless for that apartment. Its a good thing to do, helps to keep the neighborhoods diverse .. and if you have so many rent stabilized apartments in your building you can't make a profit ... your an ass for buying the building.
Rent controlled or rent stabilized apartments are special to NYC. Tenants in these apartments have an automatic renewals of their leases. Its just like magic. For all intensive purposes, their ownership rights are in perpetuity for two generations. It is almost impossible to evict a rent controlled or rent stabilized tenant. They are in an extremely safe position in terms of housing. Its the State saying property rights are not absolute ... and they are not, I might add.
Being a landlord doesn't mean you have to lose your sympathy for those without .. and having a rent stabilized apartment or two comes with the business. Its sad there needs to be legislation to stop landlords from kicking out vulnerable elderly and other persons.
As for whether rent stabilized apartments effect the market adversly .. even if they do, they need to get behind big developers, eminent domain, and 421-A in line.
Charlebklyn -
filmlover44 wrote: [quote=Garfunky]** Who do you think used to live in Park Slope and Prospect Heights before it was "gentrified?". ..... They are gone. I saw them disappear. ***
I'm guessing that they don't know what the neighborhood used to be like. They think that it's always been this white haven for the upper middle class.
When poor people are forced out of neighborhoods like Park Slope, they are forced into high crime areas where the poor are concentrated and also where transportation is limited (and therefore it is hard to get to work). Think Red Hook before it became "hot".
I'm curious as to why you think that this is a good thing?
Who do you think lived in Park Slope before it was ungentrified? Hint: in 1890 it was the wealthiest community in the United States. Presumably poor people moved in because it became run down, had a crime problem, and was thus cheap. You could say they were forced in because they couldn't live anywhere better. You could say the same thing about Park Slope then that you say about Rockaway Beach now. Places go up and down then up again, and everyone keeps moving to where they can afford. It must have sucked to be forced out of a nice neighborhood into Park Slope in those days.
I do not think this is a good thing, but the poor getting shafted when there is competition for space is nothing new. The question is whether rent stabilization is an appropriate instrument for helping people who need it most, or whether it's a blunt instrument that helps some lucky people who may not be poor, shafts others who may be poor, and causes unintended negative consequences in the long term. If there's a better way to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor in terms of housing security, one that doesn't make random winners and losers among the poor and the middle class, one that promotes rather than stifles the supply of units, and has been tried elsewhere and is recommended by experts, then we owe it to the young and the poor to try it instead.filmlover44 wrote: Is this an opinion or do you have some legitimate facts to back this up?
Rent curbs are said to foster New York tenant inequities
Gentrification and Displacement: New York City in the 1990s
"in each of the years benefits were higher for older tenants, richer tenants, and white tenants than for their counterparts"
The economic effects of long-term rent control: The case of New York City
The Misallocation of Housing Under Rent Control
"the average benefit to tenants in regulated units is negative. This implies that, on average, tenants in rent regulated units would be better off if these controls had never been established."
Rent Control, Rental Housing Supply, and the Distribution of Tenant Benefits
"Furthermore, when rent control induces poor renters to live in rich cities, those poor renters are generally older, long term renters, who are less likely to have young children living at home and are less likely to benefit most from integration. Rent control is a very socially costly means of occasionally getting integration, and housing vouchers or supply-side policies seem likely to be much more effective."
Does rent control reduce segregation? -
Well DoctorJ, I'm glad that you don't think that it's a good thing that the poor are getting displaced. Now, that you have proved some point unrelated to supporting mixed housing and tax breaks that encourage landlords to provide a portion of housing to middle and low income , do you have an alternative solution to the problem that the rest of us aren't getting or is this something that we should just accept as ok?
-
Subject: Re: Rent stabilized apartments come with the business.
charlesbklyn wrote:
Bang, right on the nose.
As for whether rent stabilized apartments effect the market adversly .. even if they do, they need to get behind big developers, eminent domain, and 421-A in line. -
filmlover44 wrote: Well DoctorJ, I'm glad that you don't think that it's a good thing that the poor are getting displaced.
What surprised me reading some of the literature is that in gentrifying neighborhood, the poor are being displaced *less* than in non-gentrifying neighborhoods, i.e. they move less often. The difference in a gentrifying neighborhood is that when they die, or eventually move for reasons unrelated to the cost of living (job, divorce, family, etc.) someone richer is likely to move in -- replacement not displacement. One of the reasons poor people stay longer as neighborhoods improve, but are not replaced by poor or lower middle class workers, is rent regulation, which reduces supply and raises prices for newcomers. If gentrifying neighborhoods lose diversity it's because immigrants, the young, and the working class cannot move in, not because the poor are forced out.filmlover44 wrote: Now, that you have proved some point unrelated to supporting mixed housing and tax breaks that encourage landlords to provide a portion of housing to middle and low income , do you have an alternative solution to the problem that the rest of us aren't getting or is this something that we should just accept as ok?
I thought this thread was about rent regulation? The fundamental problem is demand outstripping supply. Rent regulation exacerbates the problem. Experts recommend housing vouchers and/or housing tax credits for low income people instead. That's one step in the right direction; no doubt there are other policies whose unintended consequence is lack of supply, that should also be reformed.
For example, I believe the tax break on interest for owner-occupiers is a major evil, because it exacerbates demand without promoting supply, transfers wealth from the young to the old, and from the poor to the rich, and that if we removed that and spent this federal money on means-tested assistance for renters, that would help a great deal. -
** Who do you think lived in Park Slope before it was ungentrified? Hint: in 1890 it was the wealthiest community in the United States. **
hint - since i pointed that out eariler in the thread i am aware of it.
i have wondered if 5th ave was considered "gowanus" at the time.
look for old references to the old stone house. youll see it listed as gowanus ...
regardless , as of 20 yrs ago 5th ave was not even remotely considered well to do. by "re gentrifying" it is no surprise that pricing has gone back up.
Im not sure what some people expect to happen.
do you seriously think the yuppies and hipsters will allow the neighborhood to willfully "un" gentrify ?
Ya think they want the return of bodegas instead of their precious
boutiques ?
no. people will piss and moan but when it comes to actually helping the challenged these same people screech "oh no not in MY neighborhood"
A few years back a womens shelter in cobble hill was "outed" for this very reason ... such nice caring people eh ?
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