In New York the existence of rent control and particularly rent stabilization raise the rents for everyone not lucky enough to inherit that peculiar lottery. Without getting rid of that for New York there is no building solution that will solve the problem quickly
the evidence for this is always dubious - so if all of these programs vanished (and rent control is small enough to not be consequential) what do you think happens? well, the rent goes up! rent stabilization doesn't constrain landlords at 5% or whatever, and soon they're raising rents 50% or more. vacancy decontrol also existed from 1997-2019. rents did not go down!
Take my building. Half the places are rent stabilized. My neighbors pay half of what I do for bigger apartments. Without rent stabilization, which unlike rent control is fairly common, lots of peoples rent will go up but the market will stabilize and come down. 3000 dollar apartments become 2300. 1200 rent stabilized become 2300 as well and yeah maybe people will have to leave. But the system as is is not sustainable.
I think the rough outcome you’re describing is why many people aren’t convinced that abolishing rent stabilization will lower prices in a relevant way (relevant to working and lower-middle class people). The median NYC salary is like 57-59k. So at 2300 for a one bedroom, that’s HALF a yearly salary (before taxes). How is that longed-for system “sustainable?” I also don’t think the market cares whether a 40 year-old social worker has to then taken on multiple roommates; it’s not like prices will come crashing down when a median salary can’t afford a one-bedroom. It usually just means that people’s lives get progressively shittier.
There are plenty of rent stabilized apartments with preferential rents well below the apartment's legal regulated rent. The market already applies to the rent stabilization system. Eliminating it would not only only raise rents across the city more, it would cause a cost of living crisis for tens of thousands of tenants. The fabric of New York City society relies on rent stabilization.
Let's not litigate the hypothetical rent situation sans rent stabilization. I will grant you your supposition. But, on the ground level of this battle are actual people and actual rent stabilized homes. If there was a way to guarantee those rent stabilized homes go to the people who need them, I would be more amenable to the existence of them. But as it exists now it's an insiders game. It's networking. The classic "who you know." Of people I know who have rent stabilization, each of them either has family money and/or plenty of income to pay market rent. But they have connections that allowed them to find rent stabilized places. So unless my friend group is a sui generis group of connected freaks, then this a common trend. How do we create a system where the rent stabilized apartments actually go to those who need it?
I think a moderate proposal would be to stabilize all apartments built before 1994, or some similar expansion of the regime. After 30 years a mortgage is presumably paid off and any developer/owner has turned a profit. Of course recent buyers of these buildings would lose out. I personally would be fine stabilizing all housing built before 2024. That gets into trickier territory economically and at the moment is politically impossible but it's the same deal with something like massive influx of federal cash to build affordable housing, and that gets written about plenty.
That said I don't really think it's much harder to get a rent stabilized apartment than is to get a market rate apartment. There are over a million of them. You just have to know that a building with 6 or more units built before 1974 is presumptively stabilized and call a lot of apartment brokers to see what they're showing. Ironically many of the stabilized apartments that are available today are not exactly affordable, with rents over $2300 for a one bedroom. I only really know the market in Brooklyn but this is what I've seen.
I'm not particularly swayed by the desire to get rent stabilized apartments "to those who need it." Is it such a bad thing for some people to pay less than 1/3rd of their income on housing? The owners of rent stabilized buildings make a profit unless they bought in the 2010s with a variable rate mortgage and the expectation of mass deregulation. And ultimately many people who can afford nicer homes do leave rent stabilized apartments. These units are not wholly removed from the market, and over time there is a sorting effect. Plus it's just as likely that the person with a $650 stabilized apartment lives off their pension and social security as it is for them to have family money. Of course the data on New York's rent stabilized apartments is not great so for me the better thing to focus on is the question of what kind of society we want.
Just so you know, if half the units in your building are rent stabilized it's worth ordering your DHCR rent history through Justfix by texting "rent history" to (646) 783-0627. There may well have been an improper deregulation of your apartment.
Rent control is good for working- and middle-class people who need stability in housing. It is extremely bad for newcomers and young people who will be looking for housing in a rentable market that is extraordinarily constrained (since the rent controlled market turns over very slowly, as intended), and who will therefore face very high rents. This is unfair and bad for the city's economy. This is not considering the risk of long-term abandonment or conversion, which shrinks the supply even more.
If you have ever seen how a housing development project comes to fruition in a mid-sized urban community, you would understand how complicated the funding stack is and the subtle elements related to developer incentives. This challenge is separate from individual NIMBY sentiment that must be faced when a specific project is contemplated.
YIMBYs (which I agree with in theory too) operate apart from reality.
I've been on both sides of this issue as renter and a now owner occupied multifamily (not in NYC).
No inherited wealth (mother was youngest of ten, dirt poor migrant farmers from Mexico, my wife grew up almost as poor from Belarus). Rent advocates act like every landlord is raking in tons of money. I could only afford my own place by splitting it with strangers. Even after it's been barely worth it. Perhaps I am doing it wrong.
I've yet to hear what the progressive solution to having more people wanting to live in a place then there's apartments/houses for? Should it to be some housing tribunal that would decide? You think in this utopian system they'd pick a writer over daycare teacher? Is it fair in the same rent controlled building that a older professional is paying less then a janitor and clerk with two kids in a one bedroom?
Austin has no rent control saw it's population explode in the last ten years and yet all things considered the rents haven't climbed to prove the lack of rent control being a factor. It's probably because in Austin they actually build, kinda proving the YIMBY point.
Still I agree with you the that federal government should mimic Vienna's model and I broadly support it. I want mixed economic classed neighborhoods. I'm also cynical that the upperclass of us don't really want to rub shoulders with their lessers (look to MTA ridership decreases and general car ownership increases).
In New York the existence of rent control and particularly rent stabilization raise the rents for everyone not lucky enough to inherit that peculiar lottery. Without getting rid of that for New York there is no building solution that will solve the problem quickly
the evidence for this is always dubious - so if all of these programs vanished (and rent control is small enough to not be consequential) what do you think happens? well, the rent goes up! rent stabilization doesn't constrain landlords at 5% or whatever, and soon they're raising rents 50% or more. vacancy decontrol also existed from 1997-2019. rents did not go down!
Take my building. Half the places are rent stabilized. My neighbors pay half of what I do for bigger apartments. Without rent stabilization, which unlike rent control is fairly common, lots of peoples rent will go up but the market will stabilize and come down. 3000 dollar apartments become 2300. 1200 rent stabilized become 2300 as well and yeah maybe people will have to leave. But the system as is is not sustainable.
I think the rough outcome you’re describing is why many people aren’t convinced that abolishing rent stabilization will lower prices in a relevant way (relevant to working and lower-middle class people). The median NYC salary is like 57-59k. So at 2300 for a one bedroom, that’s HALF a yearly salary (before taxes). How is that longed-for system “sustainable?” I also don’t think the market cares whether a 40 year-old social worker has to then taken on multiple roommates; it’s not like prices will come crashing down when a median salary can’t afford a one-bedroom. It usually just means that people’s lives get progressively shittier.
There are plenty of rent stabilized apartments with preferential rents well below the apartment's legal regulated rent. The market already applies to the rent stabilization system. Eliminating it would not only only raise rents across the city more, it would cause a cost of living crisis for tens of thousands of tenants. The fabric of New York City society relies on rent stabilization.
Let's not litigate the hypothetical rent situation sans rent stabilization. I will grant you your supposition. But, on the ground level of this battle are actual people and actual rent stabilized homes. If there was a way to guarantee those rent stabilized homes go to the people who need them, I would be more amenable to the existence of them. But as it exists now it's an insiders game. It's networking. The classic "who you know." Of people I know who have rent stabilization, each of them either has family money and/or plenty of income to pay market rent. But they have connections that allowed them to find rent stabilized places. So unless my friend group is a sui generis group of connected freaks, then this a common trend. How do we create a system where the rent stabilized apartments actually go to those who need it?
I think a moderate proposal would be to stabilize all apartments built before 1994, or some similar expansion of the regime. After 30 years a mortgage is presumably paid off and any developer/owner has turned a profit. Of course recent buyers of these buildings would lose out. I personally would be fine stabilizing all housing built before 2024. That gets into trickier territory economically and at the moment is politically impossible but it's the same deal with something like massive influx of federal cash to build affordable housing, and that gets written about plenty.
That said I don't really think it's much harder to get a rent stabilized apartment than is to get a market rate apartment. There are over a million of them. You just have to know that a building with 6 or more units built before 1974 is presumptively stabilized and call a lot of apartment brokers to see what they're showing. Ironically many of the stabilized apartments that are available today are not exactly affordable, with rents over $2300 for a one bedroom. I only really know the market in Brooklyn but this is what I've seen.
I'm not particularly swayed by the desire to get rent stabilized apartments "to those who need it." Is it such a bad thing for some people to pay less than 1/3rd of their income on housing? The owners of rent stabilized buildings make a profit unless they bought in the 2010s with a variable rate mortgage and the expectation of mass deregulation. And ultimately many people who can afford nicer homes do leave rent stabilized apartments. These units are not wholly removed from the market, and over time there is a sorting effect. Plus it's just as likely that the person with a $650 stabilized apartment lives off their pension and social security as it is for them to have family money. Of course the data on New York's rent stabilized apartments is not great so for me the better thing to focus on is the question of what kind of society we want.
Just so you know, if half the units in your building are rent stabilized it's worth ordering your DHCR rent history through Justfix by texting "rent history" to (646) 783-0627. There may well have been an improper deregulation of your apartment.
Rent control is good for working- and middle-class people who need stability in housing. It is extremely bad for newcomers and young people who will be looking for housing in a rentable market that is extraordinarily constrained (since the rent controlled market turns over very slowly, as intended), and who will therefore face very high rents. This is unfair and bad for the city's economy. This is not considering the risk of long-term abandonment or conversion, which shrinks the supply even more.
100! as the kids say.
If you have ever seen how a housing development project comes to fruition in a mid-sized urban community, you would understand how complicated the funding stack is and the subtle elements related to developer incentives. This challenge is separate from individual NIMBY sentiment that must be faced when a specific project is contemplated.
YIMBYs (which I agree with in theory too) operate apart from reality.
I've been on both sides of this issue as renter and a now owner occupied multifamily (not in NYC).
No inherited wealth (mother was youngest of ten, dirt poor migrant farmers from Mexico, my wife grew up almost as poor from Belarus). Rent advocates act like every landlord is raking in tons of money. I could only afford my own place by splitting it with strangers. Even after it's been barely worth it. Perhaps I am doing it wrong.
I've yet to hear what the progressive solution to having more people wanting to live in a place then there's apartments/houses for? Should it to be some housing tribunal that would decide? You think in this utopian system they'd pick a writer over daycare teacher? Is it fair in the same rent controlled building that a older professional is paying less then a janitor and clerk with two kids in a one bedroom?
Austin has no rent control saw it's population explode in the last ten years and yet all things considered the rents haven't climbed to prove the lack of rent control being a factor. It's probably because in Austin they actually build, kinda proving the YIMBY point.
Still I agree with you the that federal government should mimic Vienna's model and I broadly support it. I want mixed economic classed neighborhoods. I'm also cynical that the upperclass of us don't really want to rub shoulders with their lessers (look to MTA ridership decreases and general car ownership increases).