Nora Ephron's Love Affair with the Apthorp

1.

I haven't read the whole piece yet, but I'm very curious about this $24,000 in "key money." Not only was that quite a chunk of change in 1980, but it was also, well, kind of illegal. Have lots of other people paid key money? (Lofts excluded, cause there "key money" was disguised as a "fixture fee.")

2.

Yet another example of why regulating housing is not a good idea.

3.

One reason why regulated housing is not a good idea, but millions of other reasons why it is a good idea....

4.

If one could only find an example of abuse within a capitalist system...

5.

Regulated housing takes from the rich and middle class and gives to the poor. You decided if that's a good idea in general then decide if that's a role you want your government to play. Nearly every city in the world has chosen not to take this role. Are we that much smarter than everyone else - if so, why are our rents so much higher than the other major US cities - the lack of land issue is a myth - we have plenty of space to build both out and up. The answer is our rents are higher because of over-regulation.

My feeling is that there are better ways to ensure the well being of the poor than to regulate housing.

If rents in market rate apartments continue to go up at their current pace, employers will be force to pay their employees more. Otherwise potential employees won't move here because they won't be able to live in a neighborhood they want to live in. And if employers foresee that the cost of doing business in the city will continue to raise, they will eventually leave the city for cheaper cities like Raleigh. If we lose these large employers, then we're really in trouble. We have to make the city a reasonable buy for the yuppie types too (like them or not they really help our city) - otherwise they leave (or don't ever come at all) and we are left with a smaller tax base with which we can assist the poor.

6.

To quote free-market utopians "if you don't like it, move."

7.

#5 - What are you talking about? Many, if not most other big cities in this country have some form of subsidized affordable housing. New York City did not invent the idea and is not the only place it exists. Whether it's public housing projects, low income tax credits are inclusionary zoning, all these programs essentially do the same thing - take from the rich and give to the poor. By the way, that's also what taxes do. I would say that the redistribution of wealth is probably one of the primary roles of government today.

Yes regulation of housing probably has some negative impacts on the market for housing, and there are probably better ways out there to help the poor that don't have those negative impacts - but no one has really found them yet. It's not like every other city in the country has solved the problem of affordable housing and we're sitting in NYC with our heads up our asses.

8.

#7 You have not found them yet. This city has found a way long time ago - give developers tax breaks for making parts of their developments so-called "affordable housing" The rent control and rent regulation are the most ridiculus policies ni existance. Why would you mandate certain rent increases that have nothing to do with market conditions? Almost a million people in New York stay in the same apartment for many years so they don't lose this precious rent stabilization. That creates 2 tiers of haves and have nots. Those who got those precious apartments 15-20 years ago, live in prestigious areas on cheap while the new young generation pays through the roof to afford anything in the city because such a large portion of housing stock is rent-stabilized. And have you seen some of the rent-stabilized buildings in Brooklyn and Queens? They look like the buildings I saw in the former Soviet Union - dirty, poorly managed, neglected and disgusting. The free market works better than any other system. Let the developers build. Let people afford what they can afford. The only reason why this rent-stabilization system still exists here is because the politicians are afraid of 1 mil angry voters. There's no logic, economical or other reason.

if you cannot afford to live on Upper West Side at the market prices, move to another neighborhood. That's what market economy is all about.

9.

Leo -
Yes - low income housing tax credits are probably a better way to provide affordable housing than rent-control. I am aware of it. In fact, Imentioned it in my last post. My point is that even granting tax credits is essentially the government taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It's just another method of doing it. #5 was trying to say that in general, he doesn't think that redistribution of wealth is something that gov't should be invloved in. And he implied that NYC is the only place it happens.

10.

#5, I'm touched by your concern for the poor:

"and we are left with a smaller tax base with which we can assist the poor."

Yep, that's what *really* underpins the argument against rent regulations: concern for the poor. Right...

11.

Ummm, Leo, those 1 million angry voters are the EMPLOYERS of city officials, and the city officials should damn well be answerable to them!

As to those "who got those precious apartments 15-20 years ago, live in prestigious areas on cheap", let me remind you that most of those who want into Manhattan NOW wouldn't have been caught dead here THEN without a bodyguard.

I say BRAVO to those who liked Manhattan as it was & were willing to live here before it became a trendoid paradise for the rich. They've earned their locations.

And it's also not their fault if they were born 15-20 years earlier than the oh-so-entitled generation that is now throwing a prolonged hissy fit over not being able to afford Manhattan.

12.

#9 No, it is not the same at all. First of all, tax credits are a one-time deal when the developer agreers to seel unit at below-the-market rents so that he/she can get tax credits. After that, there's no more subsidy. And these people will own the apartments - they will care for them, they will do all they can to keep their housing clean and beautiful. Rent control today does not help the poor people that need housing now. I rented a rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn at the market rent at the time because all of the buildings in my area are rent-controlled and once one of the apartments becomes vacant, the landlord jacks up the price as high as he legally can to compensate for all other tenants that pay peanuts. This is a bad system no matter how you look at it. Don't worry so much about the poor. I know it sounds bad, but we have the lowest unemployment rate in this city in years. Most people who live in the rent-controlled apartments (except for seniors and disabled) can afford housing at market prices - maybe not on Upper West Side but certainly in many parts of Brooklyn and Queens. You can rent a 1-br apartment in Midwood for $900/month. If you're an able person without any disabilities and cannot pay $900/month in today's New York, he/she has a problem that we should not subsidize. There's no free lunch. You want to live well, you need to make more money. That's a great American principle. And most young people that start their lives and career today in New York cannot rely on rent control.

13.

Leo, how kind of you to consign those who aren't filthy rich to Brooklyn & Queens. You are suggesting that Brooklyn & Queens should in effect be ghettos for the "losers" who are only able-bodied working people of normal income.

(And are we reserving the Bronx for the truly impoverished??)

14.

am I the only one that finds it odd that a blog commenting on housing the poor was initiated by a story on a woman with money living in the Apthorp, the most luxurious of buildings on the UWS? does anyone believe that any poor person has ever resided there? enough said about the intent of our rent regulation system. I would like to know how developers of 80/20 projects perform at operating lotteries and maintaining bargain rent housing to satisfy the requirements of their bargain rate loans and lower tax bills.

15.

I have to agree with Leo's comment - rent stabilization/control benefits the generation that got in 15-20 years ago.

Rent control afforded Nora Ephron the opportunity to pursue a writing career in this amazing creative city...if she were born 20 years later, she probably would be working for The Man to afford her market rate rent.

16.

#13 I lived in Brooklyn for 8 years and started renting for $850 in 1998. And that was not Park Slope or any other fancy area, but rather a working-class/immigrant neighborhood. Me and my wife were saving up to buy an apartment for all those years and finally bought a small 1br this year. I am not saying that Brooklyn and Queens should be ghettos. I am just saying that were are places in the city where the apartments are more affordbale and those who cannot afford to live in luxurious areas of Manhattan - like UWS - should look elsewhere rather than expecting to continue renting apartments at a fraction of the actual market cost. As #15 pointed out, why should there be too classes of citizens in this city - those who were fortunate enough to rent something 20 years ago and those who start their careers now or started a few years ago? Why can't all of those apartments be on the market? This is discrimination and a bad one, I might add.

17.

BakedAlaska at #11 - No, that 1 million million is only 1/8 of the population of the city. And the corner of 79th and Broadway was hardly a bad area even 20 years ago. Making them look like some kind of matryrs that were brave enough to live in Manhattan is just plain silly. They lived there because it was a good place to live. Logically, anyone making a middle class salary should be taken from rent control immediately. Right now, that figure is 150K and it's not even enforced. So you can have people making hundreds of thousands of dollars living in an apartment on Upper West Side for $400/month. Is that fair? Does it make any sense???

18.

Leo, we're not only talking about the corner of 79th & B'way, we're talking about Manhattan. I didn't say martyrs either. Plenty of people (myself included) lived here when crack was rampant & you didn't walk in ANY park alone even in daylight if you were smart. Most people looking to move in now can't believe that was ever really the situation. But we thought Manhattan was a good place to live anyway, although I can tell you that most of my friends & relatives did NOT want to come into "the city" -- in fact, most of them could not fathom why anyone would live anywhere other than the "beautiful" LI or NJ suburbs.

Most of the people I know who are "middle class" make $40-80K/year. That ain't $150K by a long shot. And most of their jobs (librarian, schoolteacher, lab technician) will never pay that kind of money.

You wrote: "So you can have people making hundreds of thousands of dollars living in an apartment on Upper West Side for $400/month. Is that fair? Does it make any sense???" Well, it makes about as much sense as people who make $35k/year paying through the nose to share an overpriced market-rate apt. with 2 or 3 roommates. Both are insane, and both are reality in NYC.

And what about people who BOUGHT their apts years ago for very little money -- is THAT unfair too? Should they have to pay the difference between their price then & what the apt. would cost today?

19.

UWSider: I agree completely. We're talking about the Cindy Laupers, Mandy Patakins, and Nora Ephrons of NYC--not the working poor. My building is about 65% rent stabilized/controlled, and while it has it's share of the elderly and disabled deservedly living there, it also has plenty of very wealthy people who are in rent stabilized apartments and using the money they save to buy homes in Europe (below me), on Nantucket (above me), take trips around the world, send their three kids to private school, and more--all on the backs of those of us who didn't get that insider deal. I don't mind paying market rate, but I resent people who can pay their own way having 2nd and 3rd houses on my dime. The system is abusive.

Yes, some of these people are artists, others are lawyers (many, actually), bankers, professors, and psychologists. They are not working poor. Some of the people in my building who are paying market rate are EMTs, public health educators, doctors, students, graphic artists, etc. Is one group inherently superior to the other? Nope. All contribute to the diversity of NYC. The trick of arguing that pro or con rent stabilization is the working poor versus the investment bankers is a paper tiger. There has to be a better way to even the playing field than rent stabilzation.

20.

#10 - this is #5 - I spend more time volunteering than any person on this blog - I object to your criticism of my intentions - I'm constantly in and out of the slum apartments in Harlem and the Bronx and realize the NY has the worst housing stock in North America. Providing housing for life is the best way to ruin a persons life. I see it nearly everyday. God forbid that a do-gooder like myself thinks that a free market system is the best way to help the masses.

The turnover rate is public housing is less than 3%. Most of this is from tenants dieing. People don't get themselves out of subsidized housing. It would be great if they did, but the stats prove they don't. We must end the regulations and increase the supply of housing - that's how you keep housing affordable - you build more of it!!!! I'm not saying eliminate all housing subsidies - each city has citizens who clearly can't take care of themselves - but a policy that protect 1M of the 2M apartments is hazardous.

It is not greedy landlords who are the problem - landlords are no more greedy a class of citizen than any other group - it is the rules that landlords work under that create these problems.

There is absolutely no reason for landlords to improve their apartments. There is no competition - they realize that because of the lack of supply created by government regulations their crappy apartments will rent. I still can't believe the slums that social services pay $900 month for in the Bronx. As long as there's no supply the landlords won't improve their crap, because they know the DSS office will give them $900 for it.

By eliminating regulations we would increase supply, bringing the prices of most of NYC's apartments down. If renters had choices on which unit to rent, developers/landlords would be forced to improve their product or let their crappy apartment sit vacant. Deregulation and more supply is the best (by far) way to provide affordable housing.

21.

Whoops, I meant "its" not "it's." Sorry.

22.

#20, I don't disagree with many of the points you are making, but to me the idea that if we took away all regulations in the rental market then it would somehow become affordable across the board -- that seems naive. Look at cities that have eliminated rent regulations & you'll see it ain't all sweetness & fairness. And those cities are nowhere near the size of NYC.

23.

http://www.nysun.com/article/32948

24.

Steen, if there's a better way to level the playing field, how come no one can figure out (or agree on) what that better way is?

25.

Didn't the long-term residents (rich and otherwise) of the Apthorp have some horrible, decades-long fight with the then-owner? If I'm right about that, I would say that most people would not have traded places with Nora Epron given what the situation was for years & years. This is one of the things people conveniently forget about when they start whining about rent regs.

26.

Baked Alaska, The 'I was here first' schtick is tiresome. Your generation had a far easier time pioneering a crack-infested NYC, than today's 20- and 30-somethings have at simply making a life here.

Do you think 'middle class' librarians, lab technicians, and school teachers of my generation can even afford to live in this city without the benefits of rent control (or real estate prices that are less than 3x their salaries)?

This isn't hissy fits or entitlement of a younger generation. It's simply an age group that is facing an increasing income gap and is only desiring the same privilege to live in and contribute to this wonderful city, in the same way previous generations have done.

27.

Rent Control is so so outdated.

It's the reason the city has slum areas. I lived in a building in Little Italy that was 80% rent control and the owner did nothing to fix the building because he was paying more in taxes than his rent roll. It's just riciculous.

Why do all you socialists think people have some God given right to live in Manhattan.

All rent control has done is trapped poor people into living in a community that they really can't afford to. They end up packing multiple families in tiny apartments and there standard of living just continues to deteriorate.

It's also the primarly reason for under investment in upkeep of buildings, streets, and public works projects and unfairly forced the middle class to subsize both the poor and the rich.

It's too bad, but now there is no solution.

Aren't we all sick of these idiot rent control tentants complaining about a 5% rent increase.

28.

Yeah, #26, the "I was here first" schtick is so tiresome -- like how wonderful it was on the lower east side a hundred years ago, and how easy all those immigrants had it! They didn't even have crack to deal with -- just diphtheria, polio, TB. Whatta life they led! Aren't you sorry you weren't around to enjoy Manhattan then?

Basically, where the hell do you get off saying we had an "easier time" 20 or more years ago -- you weren't here then, and you have abso-fucking-lutely NO idea what it was like. Some examples from myself & my friends: Coming home to find that someone used a hydraulic jack to force your apt. door open while you were at work, and your apt. is ransacked & everything of value stolen. How about coming home after work to find that the light fixture in the vestibule of your building has been stolen AGAIN and AGAIN by the drug addicts? How about coming home after dark any day of the year and having to find a beer bottle in the street (NOT hard to do!) and break it so you can walk the rest of the way to your apt. brandishing a broken bottle for self-defense? Yep, those were the good old days!

How about if you push for rent regs to be reinstated to benefit the younger generation? We're not trying to keep it for ourselves -- we didn't make the laws. We are playing by the rules that someone else made.

29.

Re: #19. Do you really believe that your rent-stabilized neighbors have been able to afford 2nd homes and private schools through your subsidy? You might want to talk to your landlord about that.

I'm in favor of rent stab. regs. They've been eroded a lot over the past decade, mainly through the adoption of the "means test" that most of these posters advocate, and have rents come down? No, they haven't. All that's happened is the continued whining of people who are paying market rent feeling they got a bad deal because their rent stabilized neighbors pay less. This has been true in NY for the past 30 years. (And I'm old enough to know it.)

Get over it people. Just because someone else got a "good deal" in your opinion, doesn't mean that they--or anyone else--has somehow screwed you.

30.

#27, some of those "idiot rent controlled tenants" fought in WWII so YOU can be free to be a jerk today!

And why do all the capitalists think they have a right to live in Manhattan?

31.

BakedAlaska, You must've taken those risks to your safety and put up with all kinds of urban decay for a reason, no? Maybe it was because there was a culture and community here that you thrived on or it was because it was the most stimulating place to pursue your chosen career?

Do you now think you are now entitled to 'reparations' for waiting it out during those rough years? Are you pleased that younger generations are paying market rate and subsidizing your generation's rent control?

32.

#22,
I don't think it's naive to think that eliminating regulation will bring prices down. When I say regulation, I mean obscure building codes (why doesn't NYC use National Standards), obscenely complicated zoning regulations (have you see the books), rent stabilization, rent control, housing courts that won't enforce the law (why it takes a minimum of 6 months to evict anyone is beyond me - if you don't pay you go - get them out and get someone in who is willing/able to pay), down zonings (it's elitist and drives up prices in every neighborhood), landmarking (yes even landmarking), lengthy approval processes (including the political process - ie Ratnerville -because of the lengthy process, even though he will eventually win, it discourages the next developer from building another large scale project - that say what you will - it will bring supply up and prices down) etc etc - these all limit supply and add costs to the builders/landlords. If we raise their costs we raise our rents.

The most unregulated city in the country is Houston - no zoning laws (imagine NY sans zoning laws and rent regulations). Houston is (I think) the 5th largest city in the country, yet CNN says that it's housing stock is 17% undervalued and NY is 35% overvalued. This also considers the fact that thousands of people moved to Houston from New Orleans. Supply there is plentiful. If a developer has or builds bad apartments they stay vacant. Imagine a new rental apartment in Manhattan sitting vacant - impossible. Imagine going to look for a rental apartment knowing you had plenty of time and options to find a good one - not just any one.
Boston's rental market is much better off now that it's deregulated and NYC would be better off too.

33.

I wonder how many of these people who are against rent regulation would change their minds if they lived in a rent regulated apartment? Also, aren't rent stablized apartments still available for rent to anyone who has good credit and income?

34.

"Rent control afforded Nora Ephron the opportunity to pursue a writing career in this amazing creative city...if she were born 20 years later, she probably would be working for The Man to afford her market rate rent."

Nora Ephron is the child of two successful Hollywood screenwriters and the ex-wife of a successful world-famous journalist. Truly a starving artist who came out of nowhere.

The few oddball cases of an Ephron or Lauper who is relatively rich with a subsidized rent does not prove that rent regulations are a failure. All it proves is that rich, connected people are able to take advantage of opportunities.

Ask the unregulated people at the Avalon Chrystie how happy they are with 20% annual rent increases when they still don't have all the amenities promised. Having to move every single year as a succession of landlords rips you off is not fun, and it's hard to think of a better method of forcing professional people out of the city, especially those with children.

Rabid deregulators pretend that Manhattan is composed exclusively of two groups:

1) Ultrarich Wall Streeters with few immobile possessions, no children in public schools, and no commutation issues who never get sick or disabled and happily pay $4000 a month for a 1 bedroom.

2) Parasites renting 16 room mansions for $50 a month.

Leo completely ignores the real problem in NY real estate- young people cannot afford to BUY. ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, because even remote regions of Brooklyn start at $500,000 now and a shell in Brownsville is $400,000. Funny how there is no price control whatsoever on sales, no subsidies to the 'underserving', and prices go through the roof.

Yet, magically, the end of rent regulations will make rental prices come down, right? It must be true, he learned it in Econ 101.

#20 is a true scholar. Yes, let's compare an island archipelago like NYC (extremely limited land and superhigh demand) to inland Houston (unlimited land and moderate demand). This comparison of Watermelons to Apples will, of course, result in the perfect result: let's end all zoning and rent laws. The best city is obviously one with maximized development all the time, especially if middle class people can't afford it. We should emulate Toyko as much as possible, NYers are ready for 150 sq. ft. apartments and three hour each way commutes.

35.

#34
the limited land comment is such a farce - we have plenty of developable land (both out and up) - Governor's Island to name just one example. If you deregulate and let builder's build prices come down. The point of building more units is to create options for potential renters so that if developers build 150 sq ft apartments no one will rent them because they'll have 5 other options on the same block.

36.

#32 -
Your points are well taken - but Houston is NASTY.

37.

I stand corrected, Native New Yorker.

If Nora Ephron were born 20 years later, Mommy and Daddy would've given her the down payment for her Tribeca Co-Op, so she could write cheezy romantic comedy screenplays for the masses without financial worry...

38.

Leo:

Other factors play in the lives of people starting out, of course, as I'm sure you're aware. It would be one thing if the only challenge were finding a $900/mo studio in Midwood (a dismal prospect with a long commute, as it is), but now especially student loan debt weighs so heavily that even with a good salary, the Midwood studio almost defies plausibility for those starting out. Some people attack that point of view as having its roots in entitlement, but whether unavoidable economic pressures or faulty judgment cause student loan debt, it blindsides young people. These pressures exists and it makes an impact.

About Houston, I grew up there, and yes, comparing the two involves too many variables that make drawing simple conclusions unfruitful. A lot of negative effects arise from lack of regulation there, including but not limited to blight and crime, and depending on your beliefs, the system there works counter to Jane Jacobs-ness.

39.

Hey #35 - THere is no housing allowed on Governors Island. It was a condition on the transfer from the Federal Government. It's a deed restriction. This is not some sort of simple city deregulation. It would require an act of Congress. And if you have to stretch to include Governors Island in order to make your point about how much spare land there is in NYC, then I think that kind of proves the point the other way.

I'm getting sick of people pointing at houston as this example of what NYC would be like with no regulation. Besides the fact that NYC is much smaller geographically, waterlocked, much denser, they are completely different built environments in almost every way. Also, despite the fact the houston is the 5th biggest city in the US - it's still only about 10-15% the size on NYC. Comparing Houston to NYC would be like comparing NYC to a city with 70 million people - which is ridiculous.

40.

#31, why would you think anyone was looking for "reparations" (as you call it)? Your paying more money for rent does not lower anyone else's. And if you think that if rent regs ended instantly, you'd be paying less, you're wrong, wrong, wrong.

When people who are rent controlled or rent stab. moved into their apts. they WERE paying market rent at the time. They were not underpaying by the standards of their time -- they were paying just as much as the next person. And if a rent stab. person moved out, the next person got a new rent stab. lease. And virtually all have had ongoing rent increases -- very few people (rent-controlled elderly with SCRIE) have fixed rent. So nobody's getting a free ride here, no matter how you want to slice it.

People paying market rent are not subsidizing rent regulated tenants. First of all, most market rent apts are in non-reg. buildings -- so everyone's paying "market" -- the only person you're subsidizing [making rich] is the landlord.

And if you move in at market rent to a place where there are still rent stab/rent controlled residents, don't you wonder how come the landlord didn't file for bankruptcy years ago, before you showed up with your fat rent check every month? It's because the landlord was NOT losing money in the first place.

41.

#34 You are completely wrong, Mr "Native" New Yorker. First of all, there are plenty of co-op 1br apartments in Brooklyn and Queens for 160-220K - way below 500K that you're talking about. Open the current Bay News in Brooklyn and will see a bunch of apartments like this. My friend bought a very nice 1br on Avenue P in Brooklyn for 170K last year. It has maintenance below $400 and he is very happy to own it. If you want to buy a new constraction condo, a 2br will run you at 450K and higher - that's correct. So, buy a coop.

Actually, there are lots of rentals availble in the outer boroughs. I commuted from Brighton Beach for 8 years took me anywhere from 50 min to 1 hour to get to Midtown) and I was OK. You have to live where you can afford to live.

The simple solution for Norah Ephron's of the world would be to enforce the rules that say: if you're making more than 150K per family, you lose rental control benefits. They never enforced the rules. They can require the tenant to provide last year's tax returns and that will end rent control for all of the rich people that abuse this system. The rule is already on the books. We just need enforcement. I hope all people that are sick with this abuse contact their city council member - at least by email. Speak out. Do something real. Venting on this board won't solve the problem.

42.

#40 oh I see, by your logic Nora Ephron paid $24,000 "key money" for the privilege of paying a market rent in 1980. you must think broker's fees are a real deal.

43.

In response to #31's comment "You must've taken those risks to your safety and put up with all kinds of urban decay for a reason, no?":

First of all, we put up with those risks because we didn't have a choice -- it's just the way the city was at the time. It's like me asking you if you choose to live here because you like polluted air; you don't WANT to breathe polluted air, but it's what we've got.

I put up with it because where I grew up was a 75-minute each way commute to my job on a train that was so packed it was unbearable. But please note the trade-off: the cost of living in Manhattan even back then was a lot higher than the cost of the dreaded 75-minute commute. I was paying off student loans (yep, we had them back in the stone age!) AND I was paying over 30% of my net income for rent. The dirt/crime/drug/prostitution problems in NYC were free at no extra charge. What WAS really nice about Manhattan back then was no street fairs -- weekends were just days for reading, listening to music, taking a walk, going to a museum... it was *quiet* in Manhattan on most weekend days... definitely a thing of the past.

44.

Leo--#41--You are completely wrong when you say "they" never enforced the rules (re: the $150,000 cap before apt. becomes destabilized). "They"? Who is "they"? They is the landlord, Leo, who asks for the income records (or, perhaps, since I don't live in stab. apt., perhaps HPD or DHCR does it if LL asks). But the LL is the key to this process. Not "they".

And, to all the posters who've expressed the correct belief that ending rent regulation would not make fair market rents go down, you're absolutely right. Want rents to go down in NYC? Get everyone you know to move out of town for a while...

45.

BakedAlaska: One of the worst things that the rent control has done is that it provides an incentive for people at stay at the same apartment removing any mobility and availability of those apartments on the market. It also creates a strong incentive not to buy your own home. And the fact is, if some of the people who have lived in the rental housing bought an apartment in Manhattan 20 years ago, that would have been a great investment: something to enjoy and leave to your kids, if you want to. In the end, this system is bad for everyone.

46.

#44 Whoever it is, lots of wealthy people that have income well above 150K live in those apartments. I would think that if the landlords had the authority to increase the rentm, they would do so. Maybe they cannot force the people to provide their income statements. I don't know the details. But somehow, Nora Ephrons of the world with 7-8 digit income live in those luxurious rent-stabilized buildings for many years while paying below the market rent. Maybe Eliott "The Cruzader" Spitzer should investigate.

47.

#42, I don't get your point about brokers' fees. Nora Ephron paid key money for whatever her reasons were (and I don't know her) to live in a place she wanted to live, and yes she was paying market rent at the time she moved in.

I did NOT pay key money to live where I wanted to live in Manhattan, nor have I ever paid a broker's fee. I rented directly from the landlord, and I was paying market rent at the time I moved here also.

I can't wait: In about 10 years' time the NEXT group of 20-somethings will start whining about those of you who are currently 20-somethings because you were "lucky for having moved to Manhattan when the rents were low", blah, blah, and telling you how much easier you had it than they do!

48.

anon - no one should be whining. Everyone should be paying the market rent (except maybe for those are are poor/disabled/old). That's how it works pretty much everywhere else in the US and everywhere in New York City except for rent-stabilized/controlled apartments

49.

#45, Leo: I hate to burst your bubble, but lots of people (including me) did start out rent-stabilized and then bought the very apartments we were living in.

I don't have kids to leave anything to, but it was indeed a good investment... except I still can't afford to move anywhere else in Manhattan! And despite being an OWNER I am still occupying the same apt. that I was in as a renter. So much for ownership leading to market mobility.

And as a PS I will say that on my block, nearly every single renter-who-bought is still in their original apt.!

Sorry for the reality check...

50.

Leo, sorry but if you were rent regulated, I doubt you'd be volunteering to pay market rent to be fair to everyone else.

And honestly, no one should be whining because everyone is playing by the rules that were & are in effect. If NYC's rules seem unfair/unreasonable, no one's forcing people to live in Manhattan. There's a whole big country out there -- move to Houston or Boston or Chicago or wherever the rules are fair and have a wonderful life there.

51.

#40 and #47 you don't know Nora Ephron? really? you cannot speculate on why someone (e.g. anyone) would willingly pay in excess of !00% of annual rent as a move in "key money" fee? true, you don't know her. and yet you KNOW that she was paying a market rent in 1980. your points don't add up. and I won't be commenting further to an "anon" poster.

52.

#49 - Just because you have a nice deal, does not make it right for the city, for the rental market and for everyone else. We are talking about a general policy that you happen to live and took advantage of.

#50 I lived in a rent-regulated apartment for many years. Because so many residents in my building lived there for 10+ years and paid little, the landlord was really neglecting the building. It was dirty. The super was rarely there. The garbage was piling up for days in the garbage room. In other words, it was a typical rent-stabilized apartment building in Brooklyn. And the landlord had nothing to worry about - after all, all those people are stuck: they are afraid to move. They have such a good deal that they'd rather put up with this kind of sub-standard living than pay a higher rent. It's a rotten system. That's the bottom line.

53.

OK, Leo, not getting your point here -- you made an argument in #45, which was refuted by the person who posted #49. That person answered your argument directly and completely.

Now in #52, you claim that #49 has a "nice deal" and "took advantage of" the situation -- but it's the situation you said would be a good idea! So what's your problem with being confronted with an example of your theory in action that happens to demonstrate that maybe in #45 you were not totally correct?

54.

#44, just wanted to say I totally agree with your comments.

55.

#51, how about you enlighten us numbskulls as to why someone would pay key money? And why does that mean that person was not paying on market rent as of that time on a monthly basis? Who got the key money? The LL? Did the LL of this litigious bldg give her a break on the rent in exchange for key money??

56.

Schadenfreude!!!

57.

Has anyone even read the article that started this thread? Nora Ephron was originally paying $1,500 per month and felt her rent was under market, but mainly was willing to pay the key money because she just fell in love with the apartment.

When she moved out some 20 years later, after raising her kids in the apartment and getting married to her second husband in front of the fireplace, she was offered a renewal lease that in three years would rise to $12,000 per month. She also pointed out that while she was living there, some truly insane individual paid $285,000 in key money for another apartment in the building.

I'm getting kind of tired of the endless circular discussion of subsidized/rent-controlled housing on this board, so I just wanted to point out two things: First of all, this article isn't exactly a good example of the evils of the current system because her apartment was DEREGULATED - so it's not exactly the best proof that subsidized apartments disappear from the market forever.

Secondly, it's an interesting example for people struggling with "rent vs. buy" to consider. If you rent, you could lose the place you call home someday. I certainly feel no sympathy for Nora Ephron - nor does she ask for any - but there is something moving about how she ends her article by saying that although her current apartment is certainly just fine, she'll never love it in quite the same way as her old spread - and I don't think that was just because of the good deal she was getting.

58.

My last apt. in Queens was rent-stablized and during the five years I lived there my regulated rent kept pretty close to market due to increases. Many of the older tenants left and freed up the places to be rented at higher rates. Did the building upkeep improve? No - instead, the newer, younger tenants and eventually I got tired of paying close to market for leaks and bugs. A crappy landlord is a crappy landlord - at least the regulations kept him from throwing anyone out on the street.

59.

#55 I'm not an economist, but the notion of a free market rent to most people, is the rent an apartment would fetch if available to everyone (the market). If one party willingly pays 133% of the annual rent to secure a lease, that indicates, beyond a doubt, a person would willing pay a higher rent, if there were no key money fee involved. In the article, Nora Ephron does describe the $1,500 rent as a bargain. In addition, I recall in 1983 the market rent for a standard 2 bedroom on the UWS was $1,600 (and hers was 5 bedrooms in an ultra luxury building). To the renter, It does not matter who receives the additional fee, as it is just a cost of occupying the apartment, and a very significant one at that.

60.

Some posters have claimed that eliminating rent regulations won't lower market rate prices. First, I'll say that my original claim of ending government regulations includes all types of regulation not just RS so #39 that would include Federal government regulations as well. You simply further my point that government regulations limit supply and create higher prices.

But I will take my claims further and submit that if rent regulations (all other forces staying equal, although I wish they would change other regulations such as zoning approval processes etc) go away market rents go down, please refute them. Different neighborhoods would see different results.
1. If demand stays constant or increases (as most predict over the next 10 years) then prices will only go down if the supply increases at a faster pace than the demand increase.
2. In Manhattan Proper: Market rate apartment rents would go down, but not by much because RS apartments represent a smaller percentage of the total housing stock. There aren't enough regulated apartments to create a supply glut, but eliminating RS rules would create more supply and give tenants more options.
3. In 2nd tier neighborhoods like the west 100's, Harlem, etc - Market rate rent's here would see the largest % decreases. Because such a large percentage of the total housing stock in these areas is regulated, many units would become vacant. Because of their location the demand would be great for the units and people would be willing to pay much higher rents for them. A 3 bedroom apartment on 106th and Columbus that currently rents for $2,700 will have so much more competition that the landlord will have to lower the rent.
4. In 3rd tier neighborhoods, not much would happen. Generally, there's not much difference between market rents and people's legal rents. Even if the units were vacant there wouldn't be much demand for them by people willing to pay more than the current regulated rents.

61.

Why does everyone assume rent regulation only relates to housing stock or assistance for the poor? Don't the health and character of neighborhoods matter? Issues dependent on longstanding communities.

To eeeck:

It's a circular discussion, fine, but I'm glad that people (including me) have so much energy to duke it out over and over, because it's an important issue that matters to people, and the only way anyone will find a solution, if one exists, is by taking any opportunity to discuss it. If not here, then where?

62.

If you take the emotion out of this issue -- which is extremely difficult -- as we are dealing with "homes" not just "housing", the pure economic reality is that rent control hurts more than it helps low income people. Study after study by moderate economists have supported this notion.

A Exec Summary to a research report is below plus a link to the study. Take the time to read -- it is rational and really should put an end to this debate and validates much of what has been discussed. Rent regs -- not subsidized housing -- helps the people who need it the least . . .

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_34.htm

"This report examines New York City’s rent stabilization system and estimates the effects of total or partial deregulation. It finds that rent stabilization provides little benefit to residents of the outer boroughs and the lower and middle-income neighborhoods of Manhattan, while providing a substantial subsidy only to the residents of the relatively affluent areas of Lower and Mid-Manhattan.

The report also finds rent increases for stabilized housing following deregulation would be significantly less than generally expected. Because residents of neighborhoods outside of the affluent part of Manhattan are not receiving significant subsidies, their rent increases would be minimal to non-existent. In the affluent areas of Lower and Mid-Manhattan, the substantial expansion of the unregulated housing market would create downward pressure on rent levels, making rent increases for stabilized housing less than might be expected."

63.

I just read the article linked to by poster #61 - it's short and to the point. I agree with his statements. I'm curious what the "nays" have to say.

64.

I totally agree with everyone that rent control and rent stabilization is a great deal for those who receive those benefits. But how about the city and state regulating other things that are important to me? So, why stop at rent? Why doesn't city set the price of new cars? Say, from now on, all cars sold will be priced based on a simple formula that extrapolates the 1946 prices for new cars against the rate of inflation. Regulating the market should only take a few hundred city employees. Starting to lose your interest in this great idea? The car companies are greedy! And while we're at it, why not set prices for computers? These are essential to many people now, and I'm quite sentimentally attached to mine. Apple must be making a fortune on their new stores...

65.

I am a Nora Ephron movie fan, I admit. But after learning that she liked the West Side only while living in its MOST luxurious building, maybe she deserves the East Side where she now lives after all. She got a palacial 5 bedroom apartment for the about the price of my small one bedroom rental in the upper West 80s. I would have gladly paid key money for a better apartment, but alas I didn't have her social connections. Instead I relied on a broker to find my home. But Ms. Ephron, please do not tell New Yorker readers that you had to use the latte method to justify the $24,000 key money for your beautiful apartment. I am sure there would have been many families willing to pay that entry fee for a $1,500 5 bedroom rental in that building. You got a deal.

66.

#64, no not losing my appetite for regulation. We all know how well airline deregulation and electric/power company deregulation have worked (ah, Enron...).

And my salary is essentially regulated by my boss/my company. I can change jobs, but my skills (anyone's given skills) will bring roughly the same amount in a similar job at a new company.

What's needed is a system where the more money you make, the more you pay in rent -- BUT with the proviso that if you suddenly are doing very badly (got laid off, got seriously ill or injured, etc.) your rent will go down to an amount you can still afford for the same apt.

67.

airline deregulation:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html

power deregulation:

http://www.aect.net/news/weeklycc/032103.htm

as for your idea for a reverse, sliding scale rent formula: imagine how easy it would be for someone who, say, owns their own business to shelter their income. And people like rich retirees with millions in the bank but living on "fixed" incomes...how is one to deal with them? Or people whose incomes are largely made up of things like tips that are 'off the books'? I could go on and on. The trouble with any socialist ideal of economic justice is enforcement and a definition of justice itself. How can one compare 8 rooms in the Apthorp to my 3 rooms in Tribeca. It gets especially tricky when you factor in things like less-than-helpful staff and postponed maintenance indicated by Ms. Ephron. In a perfect world, we'd all live in the perfect apartment for us at every moment in our lives. But in a perfect world I wouldn't have my inlaws and my best friend visiting on the same weekend and both asking to sleep on my couch. What is to be done? I don't think crying to the government to force a landlord (or a computer maker or a power company) to bend over backwards for me is the right answer.

68.

The system we have, while certainly not perfect, is a lot better than trusting greedy, lying, manipulative humans to be honest (tenants and landlords alike).

Bottom line -- we don't live in a perfect world, and in Manhattan, someone's always going to be unhappy about how things are. (In a perfect world, I would have bought a nice 25' wide townhouse back when they cost only $200,000.)

It appears that no one can come up with an achievable system that's better than the one we currently have in place in NYC (and which is going to continue to be in place). That means both rent regs. AND greedy developers will be part of the scenery. And I think that rent regs. are a bit of redress in the face of the never-ending supply of greedy developers. Manhattan minus all rent regs. is only a pretty picture if you're a hedge-fund manager.

69.

#68 - Do you think landlords are a greedier class than any other class of business owner? If so, please justify your statement. If not please explain why a landlord's business should be regulated and other businesses (who also provide necessary services like grocery stores) are not.
If regulation is good for landlords surely then we should regulate grocery stores and get rid of $4 milk - How is anyone ever going to feed their kids with all of these greedy grocers!! We must regulate them!!!!
Rent stabilization hurts more people than it helps - simply put - it should be abolished.

70.

#69, "Rent stabilization hurts more people than it helps - simply put - it should be abolished." I wouldn't want you to be in charge of health care, because then we'd just have to die & get it over with when we got sick, because it's more cost-effective that way, really.

People who become landlords do so in one of three ways:

1) They inherit the building
2) They buy the building
3) They develop a new building

Anyone who inherits a building with rent regulated tenants and then complains about the situation gets no sympathy from me -- the building was bought & paid for by someone else & the current owner is reaping the benefits. If they don't like the setup, they are free to sell, and the money they make from the sale is profit to them, pure & simple.

Anyone who buys a building is making a business decision, and if they buy a building with regulated tenants living there, they have no right to cry about how they can't make money. They've just made a bad business decision & it's not anyone's job to bail them out.

Anyone who develops a new building is building market rate housing, and rent regs don't affect them at all.

The reason a landlord's business should be regulated (where it is regulated in NYC) is because that's been the law for some buildings in NYC for about 60 years now, and people should obey the law (it's not like someone just sprang a new law on these landlords).

Most landlords are NOT affected by rent regs. And every day in the news media we are shown how many landlords are using *any* tactic (legal or quasi-legal or outright illegal) to drive out regulated tenants. Do you think that's the way things ought to be?? Do landlords have any obligation to obey the law, or does being a landlord put them in a special class that need not obey laws they don't like or agree with?

71.

#70 I agree with you on many points but..

1. First not an important point of yours, but new construction is regulated if it's more than 6 units and the rents are below $2,000.

2. I agree that landlords who buy buildings know they are regulated, but when the Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) reports their findings that expenses over the last 4 years have gone up 37% but they have only allowed rent increase over that time of 11% - how can you expect landlords not to complain. They contradict themselves. If expenses go up 37% they should increase the rents by the same amount.

3. Also, many who are buying these buildings are doing so as groups of investors. The Managing Member of the syndicate has a fiduciary duty to his investors. So if he doesn't pursue legal actions to evict tenants who aren't abiding by their lease, he can be sued by his investors. It's his job to maximize the profits of the investment - that's why they bought the building - not because they wanted to provide a below market rent to some needy, honest, likeable tenant. If you don't pay your rent or abide by the lease you have to go, no matter how good of a person you are. That's the way it works in every city in the world.

4. I don't condone illegal evictions - I understand they happen - I think they happen far fewer times that the media portrays, but I think the penalties (including the triple rent penalty) for landlords so are much more severe than you will find in other industries. What other industry has a penalty of 3 times the infraction??

5. Also, you're right you don't want me in charge of health care - but I think the country would benefit if I was. I don't think governments should be involved with health care they way they are. NY state spent $44M of their $100M budget on health care last year. RIDICULOUS. No wonder we have the highest tax rates in the country. If people can't afford their health care they should get the money from their families, then they should turn to their religious organization or civic groups, then not-for profits. It's a tough decision, but does it really make sense to have tax payers pay for an 90 year old to have kidney dialysis? My grandmother died because of lack of health care, but she was 89 years old, it was time for her to go. We love her and miss her, but it was her time. It didn't make sense for the taxpayers to pay to keep her alive. They would have, but she was honorable enough to tell them not to waste other people's money to keep her alive. Our country will bankrupt itself if people at the top of government don't realize that their aren't enough 20 somethings to pay for baby boomers to get the kind of government subsidized health care that their parents are getting.

72.

#71, OK, please name the new construction buildings in NYC where rents are below $2,000/month. We'd ALL like to know where they are! Essentially the new bldgs *are* ALL unregulated.

No, I truly wouldn't want you involved in healthcare. I'm willing to bet that you're in your mid-30's (at most) and can't imagine that anyone over 75 deserves space on the planet. No one young believes THEY will ever get old, but I assume you'd agree that your own life becomes worthless after a certain age & you don't deserve any services that cost taxpayer money.

And great idea that one must go to family first to pay for health care. I suppose you think women should stay home to care for the sick, as well. Oh, wait, that doesn't work if they have to hold down a job to pay the rent. Hmmm, we have a dilemma here...

And BTW, what *are* the criteria for keeping an 89-year old alive? If that person had cured cancer, would they qualify to be kept alive, or is 89 just TOO old to justify one's continued existence? (I'm so glad that my 103-year-old great-grandmother had the decency to die in her sleep, so as not to cost you any money. Oh, and my dad dropped dead from a sudden heart attack so no resources were expended on him, even though he still worked full-time at age 76. Just thought you'd want to know that my family is trying to save you your hard-earned $$.)

73.

#71, your second point about if costs go up 37% then rents should go up 37% also -- whoa there, then if the landlord makes a profit, should the rents be lowered by the amount of profit?

And no one believes landlords' statements of how much $$ they are losing, because they are famously averse to opening their books (either set of books!) to scrutiny. I won't ever believe that it's so unprofitable to be a landlord in NYC; people are tripping over themselves to develop new properties & buy existing bldgs., and it ain't because they expect to lose money on the deal.

About turning to religious orgs to pay for health care, I guess that leaves the athiests with one less resource.

74.

#71 - that's cold, man. If I were your grandma, I'd probably be willing to die so I could get away from your callous attitude about my worth as an elderly person.

Don't ever get old, buddy. [Your family will expect you "do the right thing."]

75.

How did this turn into a forum on healthcare?

76.

Nora Ephron says in the article that she moved to the East Side to be closer to her doctors. Just a thought.

77.

#27, and #62

Best thing I've read all week. I am so sick of all these busy body do gooders, wanting to do charity with OTHER PEOPLE's money - including my tax dollars. If you're poor than Manhatten is not the place to live. Rent control limits the supply of housing. Low supply + high demand = high price. Econ. 101. All the bleeding hearts should buy buildings and rent them out at less than cost.

78.

#72

All #71 means is that people have to be responsible for their own welfare. Someone, anyone, who lived to be 89 years old should have buckets of money. UNLESS they were irresponsible. My 95 year old grandmother was a cleaning woman. But she saved for her old age. When she died she shocked us by having an estate of over $3 million. (Left it to her church) $20 here and there put into even conservative mutual funds or ETFs add up over decades. BUT many people squander their money then expect a hand-out from the taxpayer. During the last presidential election Bush or Kerry (don't remember which) was at a town hall meeting. Some woman complained that her 80 something year old mother was spending several hundred dollars a month on medicine. The candidate instead of saying tough luck - living to 80 is not unforeseen and a few hundred dollars for medicine for an 80 year is not unreasonable - gave the typical politician answer that medicare needs to spend more for the old folks.
I'll get off my soapbox now - sorry for straying from housing.

79.

First, my story of rent regulation in NYC, Second, a crucial fact, and Third a comment:

1) I have a one bed rent stabilized apt in Brooklyn Heights for $700 a month. When I got it in 1995, I paid $3,000 in key money, the rent was $520. I was shocked at the time to realize that the key money was like a bribe. I was also smart enough to know it was a good investment. I was a student and finding this cheap rent place was really great luck.

I am now a low-to-middle paid nonprofit professional. I am saving to buy, which I expect to do in 1-2 years. I probably will not be able to live in Bklyn Heights and I accept that...

The cheap rent has allowed me more freedom with job choice, and made it possible for my husband and I to spend more time with our small son and less time at work... To stay in such a lovely neighborhood, we have decided to stay in the one bedroom as a three person family. That is a struggle, but the trees, playgrounds, and amenities (and cheap rent!) made it worth it to us for now...

What is the moral of my story? I'm not sure. But we are an example of a middle class family, certainly not upper middle class, that has benefited. Many people may think-- why you and not me? Good question. But I think it is good that there is some mechanism to protect some people and some communities..

My bldg is 80% rent stabilized. Virtually all the tenants are either elderly, working class, or middle class. There are maybe 1 or 2 people I would characterize as upper middle class.. Overall, they are teachers, some artists, a few lawyers, and city worker types. It is a nice community.

2) With the 1996 rent law, all this is changed. Luxury de-control, and lots of loop holes about rennovations are drastically reducing the number of stabilized units. In fact, in our building, all vacancies are followed by market rate-- generally through rennovations and shannanigans.

3) A free marker-minded law professor (real estate specialist) professor at NYU Law did a study of cities that de-regulated large amounts of housing to see if overall housing costs came down, as free market thinking holds. His finding? It did not! His name is Micke Schill and he is now Dean of UCLA Law. I am not sure why this is.. But as is common, "the market" does not work as beautifully in practice as it does in theory.

80.

Here's the Economist magazine on the subject:

But would rents really soar if regulation were scrapped? True, rents on deregulated homes would rise, but not universally. A new study by Edgar Olsen of the University of Virginia found that in much of Brooklyn and Queens market rents are no higher than regulated rents, whereas on Manhattan's fashionable Upper West Side, deregulation could raise rents by a median of 30%. But in the long term, as deregulation boosted the supply of rental properties, the balancing of supply and demand would start to cut market rents. This, after all, is what is happening in states such as Massachusetts, where deregulation has already taken place. But New Yorkers, as ever, like to think they are different.

81.

Here's a NYT article from 2002 on the Apthorp with other information about the building.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E1DA1E30F931A25756C0A9649C8B63&sec=&pagewanted=2

82.

And Crain's notes this week that "New York spends as much on Medicaid as do California and Texas combined."

The Census reports that on Dec 31, 2005 California had 36M people, Texas had 22M, and NY had 19M.

Considering the levels of immigrants that enter Texas and California from Mexico (admittedly we get a lot of immigrants too, but not as many as they do) and that many of our elderly leave for Florida - it amazes me that we spend so much per person on Medicaid. Enough - Stop spending my money - I spend it more wisely than the Government does.

83.

Here's a quote for a 2002 NYTimes piece.
"The most recent event to set tongues wagging was the departure last month of the movie director Nora Ephron and the writer Nick Pileggi, her husband since 1987. ''We left because they doubled our rent and then doubled it again,'' said Ms. Ephron, who moved out of her eight-room apartment after 22 years in the building but is keeping an office there. Ms. Ephron, who has moved to the Upper East Side, filmed part of her 1986 movie ''Heartburn'' in the Apthorp.

In March, Ms. Ephron's younger sister and creative partner, Delia, a novelist and screenwriter, left the Apthorp -- and the Upper West Side -- after her rent was quadrupled from what it was when she arrived seven years ago.

Other famous figures are fighting to stay -- at often-enviable rents. Cyndi Lauper, the helium-voiced 80's pop star, is suing to get her rent rolled back from $3,250 to $507. Kate Nelligan, the actress, is in State Supreme Court to prevent her rent from soaring much higher. It was $2,570 a month in 2001."

Boy, Cyndi Lauper must have been poor.

84.

#82, would you just like your money not to be spent on someone else's medical care, or shall we withdraw your support from police and fire department as well? How about anti-terrorism funding -- do you just want the rest of us to pay for it?

Do you have the slightest idea of the range of services *everyone's* tax money actually pays for, and that those services are for the benefit of all of us?

85.

So if I own property, your right to force me to charge a certain price for the use of that property derives from . . . what?

86.

OMG I live in the Apthorp. It's $11,000 a month. But it's fucking sweeeeeeeet LOL.

87.

interesting commentary ..
I have lived on the UWS for 35 years and when i moved here it was to get far away from all you pencil pushing yuppified suits. We were a neighborhood for the arts and artists. Nobody even wanted to come for dinner over here. But ... when they did get lucky enough to get an invite it wasn't long before they were calling and asking how to get an apartment here.
We are the artists, musicians, writers, intellectuals, actors, producers, designers and entrepreneurs and the old westside families that remain loyal to our neighborhood today and that are the only reason this neighborhood became attractive to all you others and yes... you have to and will continue to pay more than us to live in our neighborhood. We have paid the dues here and are not willing sucumb to your bullshit. Go find a cubicle apartment to house your cubicle minds. Only greatness of mind and spirit belongs here. We miss you Nora and Rosie and all the others that got too successful in their beautiful west side abodes.
How boring this neighborhood stands to become and how intellectually vacuous many of you are. Anyway ... thank god you won't be coming to my house for dinner. You just could never qualify for my guest list.