This website is currently under construction

 

GENERAL IDEAS

     History of Rent        Stabilization

     Can We Allow        Change to Take Place -        Addressing the Issue

     Subsidies to Live in        NYC

POVERTY IN AMERICAN CITIES & NYC

NEIGHBORHOOD CONTROL

ZONING

PARIS

DOES GOOD ARCHITECTURE MATTER

 
 

 


My ideas address the issue of change. Something very complex and fraught with fear for most people. What a shame at this juncture in NYC’s and NY State’s history, with record budget deficits, that the issue of how massive positive change can take place in NYC and NY State by only allowing the Rent Stabilization law to end can not be discussed. Hopefully, it will be.

In the past, the only discussion has been Landlords screaming “I need more rent” and tenants screaming “I can’t pay more rent” and that has been the “discussion” of our housing laws. It is much more complex than this and should be discussed. Allowing change brings to the forefront a very serious issue - what to do with housing, and assisting, the poor in America.

My ideas about a “revolution” in the social service system in America, which would be a wonderful vehicle for allowing our Cities to return to the former glory that they once were, to provide for a way to enable those who can not take care of themselves to be self sufficient, a way to greatly reduce the cost of social service in America and a way to revitalize the American economy. More details can be found on the link - Community Living Centers (CLC’s).

If change were allowed to take place, by allowing a free movement of the middle class population from all over the world that would love to live in NYC, NYC would be flush with money and would be able to help those who the City felt needed a subsidy to live in NYC. Senior Citizens without independent resources and others in need - those the City felt were ”entitled” to live in “The Greatest City in the World” could be subsidized by government, not private business.

(back to top)




NYC has 2 forms of rent regulations. Rent Controlled tenants are from the 1960's and earlier and as they die or vacate apartments, the apartments become either Rent Stabilized or Decontrolled. There is a small body of these tenants remaining. Since the obstacles for getting rent increases is so cumbersome, it is not uncommon to have a Rent Controlled tenant pay $100 a month for rent! A bargain or a travesty?

Rent Stabilization came into effect in the 1970’s. It was a time when the middle class were fleeing NYC in full force. The only place middle class were moving to was, basically, the Upper East Side (and Brooklyn Heights). This meant there was a dramatically reduced supply of housing and as demand shifted, particularly in times of increased demand, rents would jump. The NY State Legislators were informed and Rent Stabilization was initiated. It has a wonderful name, sounds good in principal - tenants are given lifetime rights to live in their rental apartments and the rent increases are regulated each year. What could be bad. And for many years, it did not matter much.

The middle class were not so interested in moving to NYC until the early ‘90’s, so the law was not of great consequence, except the inherent unfairness of it. Now the middle class from all over the world would love to live in NYC, but most can not afford the rents.

(back to top)



NYC Maps
What's New
FAQ's
News Articles
Useful Links
Contact Us
Home

 



Addressing the Issue -
Change can not take place if you do not allow it to take place. Since Rent Stabilization gives lifetime rights to tenants for possession of apartments the law prevents change. I believe we are remiss as a City and State not to allow positive change to take place. However, to address the issue seems to be an anathema.

Politicians fearfully stay away from it. The public does not understand, so does not get involved. Those who scream the loudest get heard. The last time the law expired (6 years ago), it was the “little old ladies” in their pink hats who the legislators heard. This issue is too big to not allow the public
not to be informed as to the pros and cons. We owe it to ourselves to understand the consequence of not allowing change. We are living with the results today.

Rent Stabilization has “cemented” NYC’s population base in at it’s historically lowest socio-economic level”. We say to the middle class who would love to come to NYC - Screw You - We are taking care of this huge indigent population for the rest of their lives - after all, they did sign rental leases for 1 or 2 years and since they are Rent Stabilized, we will take care of them for the rest of their lives. Who cares if the State has an $8 billion budget deficit and the City a $3 billion deficit. We will suffer!”)) I hope the media will take hold of this issue to allow an intelligent debate to take place.

(back to top)



If the population base were allowed to change, which would happen if Rent Stabilization
ended, the City and the State would be flush with money. See the link $1 Trillion More
for NYC Each Year. Government could take the responsibility to subsidize those who are
in need and are entitled to a subsidy.

Is the drug dealer entitled to a subsidy? A government board would decide. Is the elderly man who is worth $3 million entitled to a subsidy? If he has the nerve to ask for one, the subsidy board would decide. It is government’s place to subsidize, not private industry.

(back to top)

 

 

CRHNYC.Com

Box 602
New York City, N.Y. 10031
Tel: 212-283-1497 / FAX 212-283-6522
Email: DonWeiss@crhnyc.com

Copyright 2003
All Rights Reserved