As a landlord (and a former university student) I know all about rental increases, and living on a budget. However, I think a landlord should be able to raise the rent to accomadate things like cost of living, and property taxes being raised, etc.

$1,000 for a property that could rent for $2500, should be able to be rented for at least 80% of that, without any law saying otherwise. Maybe allowing rent to be raised a certain % every year would be more fair to both tenant and landlord. I don't know that there is an easy way to be fair to both sides, but no way should the landlord be forced to keep rent low, so that they basically subsidize her vacation home.

The market determines a fair price.

it already is raised a percentage every year.

most of the tenants in my building pay market rate (primarily students funded by very well off parents) but there are a few of us in rent controlled and stabilized apartments. some are elderly and have been here for decades and the rest, like me, work in the arts or teach. even with lower rents it's not easy to afford. i would just like to remind folks that we are the people who create so much of what makes new york a fascinating vital city.

there are certainly examples like the one above which although legal feels very unfair but the vast majority of these tenants really need and deserve the protection and are a significant part of what draws people here in the first place.

Landlord's don't own rental properties to be charitable. They take a financial risk purchasing a property and should be able to reap the rewards. In New York, currently the ceiling is very high for what people are willing to pay. That doesn't mean it will always be that way though, and that is the risk. On top of that, property owners in NY pay exorbitant taxes so this is part of the reason they must charge such high rent. They should be able to reap the reward of their risk. There are too many regulations taking away personal freedoms. Cheap rent in Manhattan is not a right. I would love to live there, but I can't afford it, and I don't expect somebody else to subsidize my lifestyle.

Sure landlords take a financial risk when they buy property to rent, and part of that risk is having to follow the laws, which include rent control. If they do not want to follow the laws, they should not buy property. The rent control law may be able to be improved upon, but I get so freaking tired of people "buying houses near the airport and then complaining about noise."

Another point, rent controls RAISE the price for people in apartments that are non price controlled. Landlords need to make up what they are losing on rent controlled units, so naturally they charge more when they can.

Individual property rights!

It seems like the law should be amended to disqualify those who own other homes!

The article says, "If the unit is occupied, landlords can charge market rents after hitting the $2,500 threshold if the tenant's household income exceeds $200,000 for two consecutive years"

Why not remove the this part of the equation: "after hitting the $2,500 threshold" At a 3.75% yearly increase, it will take forever to hit that threshold.

Actually, there is a better replacement: rent control based on income. Renters already need to show the landlord how much they make before they qualify for an apartment.

Since rent control is supposed to subsidize payments for those less able, let's make sure it helps them.

I do think there's a much bigger issue of whether one can regulate the prices on housing. Just because I want to buy, say, a Jaguar, doesn't mean I can pass laws to lower the price for me. Housing is someone's property and I think there's a Supreme Court issue on whether someone else can determine the value of my property. We do not regulate prices in other areas, and when we do, it is with lots of caveats.

As a New Yorker currently looking for a new apartment: I kind of hate both sides in this article. When I first moved into my studio apartment, my rent was $1700. I like the area, I like the unit, and I haven't had any reason to move. Every year, my landlord has jacked the rent up, while refusing to do any upkeep to the apartment beyond painting.

(Well, no, I did come home one day to find that they had pulled down the perfectly functional wooden fence in my small back garden and replaced it with a chain-link and vinyl one, and in the process razed all of my flowerbeds (about $400 worth of plants). And of course they installed it incorrectly and it has since fallen over and cracked all of the concrete of the patio, and is now supported entirely by planks of wood screwed into the side of the building. And they did fix my air conditioner. By installing a new one. And not removing the old one. Twice. So I have two permanent non-working air conditioners in my wall. Like modern art! And they did replace that chunk of my ceiling where my upstairs neighbor's pipes burst and the water from her toilet poured through...after I threaten to take them to court because they were originally going to just paint over the water damage.)

The result is, if I had signed another year's lease, I would be paying $2400 (an amount that would afford me a 2 bedroom), while the identical until next door would pay $1800 because he's only been here a year. Also, mine is the only until in the building without a dishwasher, because they'll only work on kitchens after a tenant moves, but! I do get the added bonus of one of my kitchen cabinets slowly turning to sawdust a little more each day because the previous tenant set it on fire, and silly me, I thought they'd fix that when I made a note of it, but no: they WILL NOT touch that kitchen.

This ended up being incredibly long, but my point is: I don't understand why my landlord wouldn't rather keep a quiet tenant who always pays on time, and would rather price me out of the place, and then put it back on street easy for $1700 and start over with an unknown tenant, who they will proceed to do the same thing to.

what now? why would your landlord relist the apartment for the same rent? they fix up the kitchen, raise the rent 16% over whatever you were paying (unless rent stab.) and make more money.

"some are elderly and have been here for decades and the rest, like me, work in the arts or teach. even with lower rents it's not easy to afford. i would just like to remind folks that we are the people who create so much of what makes new york a fascinating vital city."

How about we also supply free food and clothes and entertainment because you are so vitally important in our lives that we must subsidize your existence. I just re-read the US Constitution and cannot find any article where you are guaranteed that you may live in NYC just because you want to. There are many things I would like but unfortunately just cannot afford. If you cannot afford to live here- move.

@lady j
I suppose they'd list at a lower rent to sucker someone in who doesn't realize it will be raised each year (I dunno, I live in Philly and I think every lease I've signed has specified "if you resign, rent may increase up to X%", where X=5 or something not insane. This isn't standard elsewhere?) OTOH, I'd agree that if they fixed up the kitchen (no guarantee of that, imo, considering the cabinet was from the previous tenant) they should be able to dare to list it for more.

@Lady J: I don't understand their system either, but I've watched them do it for years, so it must work for them somehow. But the math makes no sense to me. Do they really make more money by getting someone in at x and then raising the rent until it's too high to afford/be worth it, so they can get someone else in at x and do it all over again, instead of charging somewhere between x and y from the start for possibly a longer amount of time? As for why they won't list it for more after fixing up the kitchen: it's not worth more. At its size and location it wouldn't rent for what I pay now with a new kitchen (one reason I'm moving), but it would rent for more than what I know they'll list it as (see: I do not understand).

LIBERTARIAN1, I totally agree. The hubris of these people to think that they are so "fascinating" that everybody else should pay their rent. And don't joke about food, clothes, and entertainment. That will be next. It doesn't matter if you've lived their your entire life. Nobody but yourself is responsible for your lifestyle. Because these people are paying a pittance (by NY standards) for their unit, the rent on the other units in the building skyrocket to make up for it.

Would the Harmons feel differently if their rent-stabilized unit was rented for the low price to someone who did not own a separate property? It's one thing to say they are suffering financial hardships because a tenant is paying a greatly reduced rent. It's another thing to target the tenant and fault them for owning other properties. Quite frankly I would not think it is relevant for my landlord to know what other properties I own.

Anyone who bought a building with rent controlled tenants in New York knew what they were buying, and it was reflected in the price they paid. If the law is overturned, the landlords will have a huge windfall. Why do they deserve that? Rent control is already being phased out.

Neighborhoods that were solidly middle class when I was growing up are out of reach for all but the rich now. It does not make NY a better place. Overturning rent control would drive out the last remaining middle class from Manhattan, including mostly old people who have lived there all their lives and whose families and life-long friends are nearby. The apartments will be de-controlled when they die. Let them stay. Everything can't be about maximizing someone's ability to get rich.

If this goes through only the rich will be able to stay in NYC and SF. I can guarantee that some 40 year tenants in SF will leave. The SF rent control is tied to the consumer price index with a max of 60% of the CPI. This keeps rents below inflation. Also, you get the interest from your deposit back each year.

I do see their point though. Does their contract allow this family to sublet? In SF legal sublets are almost unheard of and if this is the case it would be grounds for eviction

What's the usual ratio of rent-controlled vs. non-rent-controlled units in a building? I doubt the enormous cost of rent in the non-rent-controlled units can really be blamed on the few units that are rent-controlled.

I agree that landlords who "took the risk" of investment should reap the rewards, and the shortfalls, of that risk. It's not like they didn't know there were rent-controlled units in the building they purchased. Really, the only ppl getting screwed are the ppl who don't manage to luck into such a unit.

Many here have made assumptions about the financial positions of both landlord and tenant that are (IMHO) false, and more importantly, irrelevant.

Most small landlords who get into this business do it with no idea how much trouble and work is involved. Most tenants have no idea of the work or expenses involved in home ownership or how to operate this business.

However, all tenants, landlords, judges and politicians understand that there are more voters who are tenants than landlords and which way to bend the laws. These laws are causing the overall housing problems here. Rent stabilized apartments keep tenants in the apartment longer than they want because there is a shortage of housing because no one wants to move to a more expensive apartment. Landlords don't like putting money into their property knowing that the work is all expense and no return, and they know the tenants won't move for the above reason.

Leaving the rent to the market will not cause unbridled greed. People will not pay more than they have to and landlords do not want empty apartments. Manhattan may be too expensive to live in for minimum wage earners, but the outer boroughs, with public transportation won't be.

If the City believes everyone has a right to live in Manhattan, the City should subsidize them, not the landlord

Rent should be able to be charged at fair market value. That's all I was getting at.

Being a landlord can really suck sometimes, but if you get a good tenant, I see no issues with rewarding them for good tenancy.

HOWEVER, someone who's lived there long term (10+ years) should not expect to be getting the same rent they were 10 years ago at the landlords expense, because everything goes up in cost for the landlord; taxes, utilities, upkeep etc.