Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GhostOfArendt t1_ivz5x41 wrote

It's a major problem that all these things are led by activist fundamentalists who will never compromise because their crusade is not for tenants, but against capitalism. More housing court judges and a system that works faster would address complaints of both landlords and tenant advocates (landlords want faster evictions of shitty tenants), but something that fair would never fly with the communists doing tenant organizing. This brought to you by the same people blocking zoning reform, which would increase unit supply, because they demand that every new unit be permanently regulated.

109

09-24-11 t1_iw025j6 wrote

The article is reporting the union is fighting against illegal eviction where a landlord will change locks and remove possessions without going through housing court. Regardless of underlying beliefs (like anti-capitalism) I think we can all agree that no one should support illegal evictions.

55

GhostOfArendt t1_iw03a1n wrote

Then the solution is more judges and faster-moving courts.

37

4zem t1_iw1d5bo wrote

I hope! I have been trying to evict someone who hasn’t paid rent in almost 15 months and is constantly smoking weed in the hallways, poured bleach on plants in the vegetable garden, and would literally blast music from 1am-3am while the tenant in the neighboring apartment was dying from cancer. I’m all for helping out people in need, but this dude is something else. Can’t wait until he’s gone, and court got pushed back to December again.

21

09-24-11 t1_iw03dpj wrote

Completely agree. I just don’t think underlying beliefs should invalidate legitimate concerns.

6

ClaymoreMine t1_iw2t5hp wrote

They should also fight for beneficial ownership disclosures for buildings. The LLC shell game employed is disgusting.

2

Rtn2NYC t1_iw88fpk wrote

Write your congressional reps and tell them you support public access to Beneficial Ownership Secure System (BOSS), the database currently being created to house that information under the new regulations implementing the Corporate Transparency Act.

2

occasional_cynic t1_ivz7qxc wrote

Yeah, I want to agree with their cause because this is a serious issue - absentee landlords who just do not give a shit need to be held accountable. Then I saw the photo and realized it is a bunch of socialist wannabe hipsters whose parents probably pay most of their rent.

24

MarbleFox_ t1_iw1liaj wrote

> is not for tenants, but against capitalism.

What’s the difference?

0

El_Nahual t1_iw604zx wrote

I'll bite. "Tenants" means "People who exchange money for the right to live in a place someone else built and is responsible for"

Ok now you define "capitalism."

2

MarbleFox_ t1_iw7awjk wrote

“Tenants” are people who need housing, but aren’t lucky enough to have the wealth to buy their own house, “landlords” are people lucky enough to have excess wealth so they exploit the fact that people need housing by inflating housing values and making less wealthy people pay their mortgages all under threat of eviction.

“Capitalism” is a system of exploitation where those lucky enough to have excess wealth get to control and rig the economy in their favor by siphoning wealth from those with less to those with more.

Being for tenants and against capitalism are inherently linked, you cannot be one without also being the other. Any and every measure that is pro-tenant is also inherently anti-capital and vice-versa there’s simply no way around that.

−1

MLao_ t1_iw1na3g wrote

Sir this is a Wendy's.

−4

NetQuarterLatte t1_ivyxui0 wrote

Renting is great for the short-term, where people want mobility and the option to easily move out.

But long-term tenants should really be given a path towards home ownership, so that they never have to deal with landlords, have stable housing and accumulate wealth over time.

This class system that chains tenants to their leases for life should never exist, and only benefit the politicians who profit from perpetuating such struggles while posing as their "advocate".

46

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_ivzkx36 wrote

NYCs transaction costs are the highest in the country to buy real estate. This is a big disincentive to buying vs renting. The mortgage taxes are the highest, you have to use an attorney that costs $3,000 (many areas if the country the real estate agent draws up a standard contract), and many buildings have strick requirements that makes sense to some extent given that it's almost impossible to foreclose on someone in NYC. If someone could be foreclosed on quick the buildings would not worry as much as someone not being able to pay their monthly maintenance.

Plus for all of this cost you get the worst service in the country. In NYC it can take months to close. In every other part of the country the transactions all close in under 30 days.

25

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw05nko wrote

I think part of giving a path to homeownership for people should include some form of lower transaction/tax costs for people buying their first home.

8

According_Surround_7 t1_iw3013e wrote

The FHA home loan program reduces the downpayment on a mortgage from 10-20% to 3.5% which means savings of a couple thousand rather than tens to hundreds of thousands.

1

Tarmaque t1_iw7ouas wrote

3.5% down on a $500,000 studio the size of a closet is still a lot more than “a few thousand”.

1

According_Surround_7 t1_iw7v7jt wrote

Its still a significant boon to first time home buyers size of home irrelevant. $17,500 (3.5%) down is a couple months savings in NYC $100,000 (20%) is a couple years. Sure its a small studio, but it's a studio very close to work surrounded by amenities in a city where most people spend very little time at home. There is also crazy value in locking in cost of housing while costs around you rise and not having to own a car or insurance and maintenance for said car.

0

PostPostMinimalist t1_iw00w5h wrote

But co-ops don’t have mortgage tax I believe? Unless over $1M. So co-op closing costs are actually very cheap.

6

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_iw16hh5 wrote

You do save on the outrageous mortgage tax with coops. Though the mortgage restrictions are tough. Generally under 80% ltv plus a legal box of financial info to the board. It's much harder to be accepted by the board than to get the mortgage.

5

ctindel t1_iw160k9 wrote

You still need a lawyer even if you're not paying the mortgage penalty tax like those of us non-coop owners.

4

PostPostMinimalist t1_iw16aka wrote

Lawyer fee is like one month rent. It doesn’t make NYC transaction fees the highest in the country.

1

GasDependent7862 t1_iw36rb4 wrote

All of these are valid concerns that housing “advocates” refuse to acknowledge. I’m all in favor of maintaining these restrictions and even increasing them for people purchasing their second property but for their first they should all be waived. Housing is the most stable form of investment so it robs all of our economy from actual investment and makes it even worse by artificially increasing values.

1

movingtobay2019 t1_iw0c3xz wrote

You can't have a system where housing is both a source of wealth accumulation and affordable.

11

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw0js4q wrote

Yes you can.

Owning a home you can live, by itself is wealth.

The market price of the home going up is just a measure of market price, because the home and the quality of life you derive from it is the same.

0

Darrackodrama t1_iw126ks wrote

100% false we’ve gone through this nationwide.

Look at Vienna 40% quality public housing stock and 1/2 as expensive rents.

As long as housing is an investment it’ll be too expensive.

18

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw1g07d wrote

It can be owned and it can be cheap enough to buy with the cost amortized over time, if we make enough housing.

That’s better than being chained to a lease and paying rent for life.

−1

Darrackodrama t1_iw1hlg9 wrote

You’re assuming that the private market wants to build the type of units we’d need to build for housing to not be where it’s at. They don’t want to and that’s why we are where we are. Until we introduce public sector competition to the housing market or outright set rates on rent we will continue to get hosed.

We’ve tried private markets long enough and look where it’s gotten us.

7

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw2dipb wrote

The problem is that there is no market for constructions when only the “well connected” are able to get zoning/permits to build housing.

NYC was captured by a NIMBY mafia that is starving the city of new supply.

3

Darrackodrama t1_iw2kxxd wrote

Lol you are Proving my point, the housing market is run by a nimby cartel Because that’s what happens when you leave decisions of public concern in private hands.

It’s like in your mind these things just happened to occur; without considering that they maybe occurred because of the states deference to the market to House basically everyone.

If you wanna simp for capitalism that’s fine but we know how to fix housing crises because we have an example of how to do it. Whether you accept it or cope and blame zoning is up to you.

We need like 600,000 more affordable units and the private market is not going to provide them, so the public sector needs to step up and learn from Vienna

3

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw2lr2e wrote

Let’s just be clear that minority who captured the market is in the NYC Council and in Albany making laws, while posing as “advocates” for tenants.

2

movingtobay2019 t1_iw0risd wrote

So what happens when said long term tenant wants to move after 10 years before fully owning the home they rent?

Or what happens when the long term tenant has essentially bought out the LL (which is what you are implying if a long term renter can own the home they rent) and wants to move?

What price would they put the unit on market for if there is no wealth accumulation (price increase)?

−4

SolitaryMarmot t1_iw0wq6w wrote

You can have equity in an asset even if it's not 100% equity.

4

movingtobay2019 t1_iw1dxbe wrote

And what do you think happens if that asset never goes up in value and charges you interest and taxes every year? Do you think your wealth is going up or down?

And more importantly, who is going to invest to build this in the first place if the value never goes up? It's like asking people to invest their 401k in an asset with 0 growth.

You guys are living in a fantasy.

1

SolitaryMarmot t1_iw1eq7u wrote

What makes you think the asset wouldn't appreciate. I mean...there's a years long waiting list to buy places in Penn South and the Mitchell Lama buildings

2

movingtobay2019 t1_iw1eyys wrote

Because I am responding to someone who thinks an asset can both create wealth and be affordable. The only way an asset can be affordable is for it to not appreciate.

If you want homes to be affordable, you can't have a system that treats it as an asset that goes up in value.

3

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw2edye wrote

You’re too fixated on the market price.

Market price is just a measure of wealth, and an incomplete one.

Owning a home over the long term which you can enjoy is by itself wealth.

Get people a fixed 30-year rate so that they can buy their home over a long period of time, rather than paying rent without accumulating any equity.

We had a whole decade to do move a ton of long-term tenants into homeownership for very cheap and missed the boat. Next time the interest rates come down, we should be prepared for that.

1

MarbleFox_ t1_iw181ap wrote

What on earth are you on about? Owning a home accumulates wealth even if the value of the home never appreciates.

−1

movingtobay2019 t1_iw1dt14 wrote

Claiming a home accumulates wealth even if it never appreciates is like saying your wealth goes up in a savings account that pays 0 interest and charges you $1k a month in fees.

7

MarbleFox_ t1_iw1l01v wrote

If you spend $2k/m for 30 years on a mortgage that doesn’t appreciate you’ll still be left with a house worth about $300k, likewise if you pay $2k/m for 30 years on rent you’ll be left with absolutely nothing.

Which scenario represents more accumulation of wealth?

  1. Spending $720k over 30 years to own nothing

  2. Spending $720k over 30 years to own a $300k home.

0

movingtobay2019 t1_iw1m13y wrote

You will be spending more on the mortgage. There is no scenario where your mortgage and rent is the same for a similar unit in the same neighborhood in NYC unless you put an obscene amount of money down (money people don't have), especially with today's interest rates. On a 30 year mortgage with 20% down, your interest payments will exceed your loan with today's rates.

Add in taxes, HOA fees, maintenance, and buying/selling costs.

But that's besides the point because you aren't going to get anyone to invest capital to build the $400M apartment building in the first place.

2

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw2et86 wrote

That’s where I think the path for homeownership should be easier.

Coming up with the down payment, negotiating a lower interest rate, and doing it in bulk (many homeowners at the same time, many building maintenances at the same time, etc) is something that maybe only a government can help organize (organize, not run).

But you know, some people think it’s just better to chain those tenants to a lease for life.

2

MarbleFox_ t1_iw2iyrh wrote

Who said anything about a similar unit in the same neighborhood? I’m talking about a similar budget.

If you’ve got $2k/m in your budget for housing, you’ll be building more wealth by buying something within that budget rather than renting even if the house doesn’t appreciate in value.

1

Race_Strange t1_ivzcgbc wrote

Well... Starter homes and dense low cost housing would really help. And affordable condos.

9

Shawn_NYC t1_iw0a2z3 wrote

The Trump tax scam makes home maintenance a deductible expense for businesses but not for homeowners. Corporate landlords literally have the playing field tilted for them and against you.

5

IAmGoingToSleepNow t1_iw2j7ug wrote

What Trump tax scam? Were business expenses not deductible before Trump?

−1

Shawn_NYC t1_iw3e94a wrote

The 2018 tax law included the following provision:

"Landlords can elect to write off repairs, maintenance, and improvements if the total of these expenditures does not exceed the lesser of 2% of the unadjusted basis of the property or $10,000 during a given year."

1

Darrackodrama t1_iw11wae wrote

We just need to reform The buying process radically

I’m in the market for a a coop up to 350 and the amount of bullshit is ungodly

2

Cuselife t1_iw2wu2m wrote

I rented for some 20+ years. 6 years ago I bought house. I found out quickly I am not a "home owner". I don't like the responsibility of it. I don't like having my money taken by shitty contractors with zero recourse to get it back and shut them down. I don't like that I have to live next to a shitty neighbor who bought the house last year and he can't be evicted for making the neighborhood obnoxious. I want to go back to apt life so bad but unfortunately rent is even more obnoxious than when I bought my house. So not everyone is geared for owning a home.

2

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw2x37z wrote

I mean, if you got a good landlord, sure. But that’s hardly the norm..

−1

i_wannatalktosamson t1_ivzot1j wrote

Given a path to home ownership? They’re free to buy something whenever they like

−6

NetQuarterLatte t1_ivzpwta wrote

>Given a path to home ownership? They’re free to buy something whenever they like

Not when they can't accumulate any wealth, because the wages are artificially low, because their leases are kept artificially low (rent regulation), because of government interference.

9

i_wannatalktosamson t1_ivzqkpa wrote

Don’t complain you can’t accumulate wealth while living in one of the Most expensive cities in the country

−6

NetQuarterLatte t1_ivzrews wrote

You have a point.

There are two job openings for each unemployed person in the US. Plenty of opportunity.

−6

talkingstove t1_ivzeizq wrote

Tenant unions are the strangest things. The idea of a union is labor is skilled and in demand, and together your interests are stronger than apart.

There isn't really a in demand skill here (anyone can live in an apartment), and being part of a union would be a signal to a landlord you are probably going to be annoying so they likely would just want to rent to someone else whose money is just as good as yours.

9

GettingPhysicl t1_iw0m73l wrote

yeah this mostly works because kicking people out of housing isn't something we're super keen to make easy in ny. Also probably a lot of places are too leveraged to feel comfortable with a rent strike. Sure you are within your rights to kick everyone out because they wont agree to a 30% increase in rent - and someone definitely would rent your units for that. But itll take a year to remove the tenants, and none of them are paying, and you will go bankrupt in that year without any rent.

6

ctindel t1_iw16ds7 wrote

There are unions for unskilled labor too.

1

kiklion t1_iw29jje wrote

> Tenant unions are the strangest things.

They make some sense, but not how they are doing it here.

Imagine if every renter in the city join the same tenant union, and the union delegates determined what it’s members were allowed to pay for rent at each apartment.

You’d essentially be changing the metric used to determine who gets each apartment from who is able and willing to pay the most, to something else. Whoever has the best credit score or whomever applies first or whomever is the most attractive.

The hurdle though is that anyone with money probably wants money to continue to be the metric used to determine housing distribution. It even has the benefit that two people with the same moneys can indicate how much they want a specific unit in a specific area (with specific roommates) by changing what % of their income they are willing to spend. If the theoretical union used seniority in the union as the metric, some immigrant who works 80 hours a week isn’t likely to volunteer to continue living out of homeless shelters so that native born, part time cashier Timothy Johnson can get the next apartment for lease.

0

Regularjoe42 t1_iw2kw2r wrote

The skill tenants provide is "working at a job for money", which the landlord doesn't do. If tenants stop paying, the landlord can't afford their bills.

Like any other union the landlord can try to replace troublemakers. Replacing one is a problem. Replacing them all is bankruptcy.

0

i_yell_it t1_iw1eju0 wrote

tenants are in demand because they provide the value extracted by the landowner and pay his/her mortgage..

−1

[deleted] t1_iw1pzdb wrote

[deleted]

1

modakim t1_iwasyjn wrote

A RS building being sold won't force out the families since the new landlord takes the building subject to those RS leases.

0

occasional_cynic t1_ivz3tmj wrote

Sorry, the city would rather spend money boosting the NYPD payroll to 40,000, or creating a new DEI office than dealing with real world issues. Maybe they can cut some more housing authority positions to create a new assistant administrative affairs division at ThriveNYC.

−2

NetQuarterLatte t1_ivzdiq2 wrote

Meanwhile, we spend 3 billions on homelessness, and the problem doesn't have an end in sight.

San Francisco has a budget per capita 50% higher than NYC, and the problems are worse there.

No amount of budget will fix the problems created by the capture of the city by those political groups. In fact, all they want is more budget, to perpetuate their serfdom system.

17