NYC cuts $10k/yr rental vouchers leaving many homeless then spends $36k to house them

[Dari]

It's like talking to a wall.

Even if it exists for "socioeconomic" (which is a bullshit cop out for not wanting to understand the actual economic impact it has on the poor on your part) reasons the facts is that rent control is harmful for those who are at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder, i.e. those it claims to want to help.

It is harmful for those people because the known destructive nature of rent control policies on rental markets causes a suppression of supply, a reduction of the quality of supply left available on the market and causes the direct opposite of what it claims to do for those entering the market place, which is control rents. Instead "rent control" (a deceitful name for such a policy if ever there was one) causes rents to spike higher and higher overtime due to the aforementioned effects. Clearly you're trying to avoid having to deal with being flat out wrong and you are burying your head in the sand. And again the rent vouchers are the cherry on top which provides ample example of the admission by those who support this flawed policy as to why it does not work. If "Rent Control" were working as intended rent vouchers would not have to be provided to NYC's poor who find it increasingly more difficult to find affordable apartments to rent as the decades roll on by and this horrible policy is allowed to wreck and distort the rental market in that city.

You don't even know what you're talking about. There are many laws that regulate NYC apartments so that crap you're spewing can be easily addressed. Also, rent control keeps people in their homes. The very same middle class people that you claim it is hurting were allowed to stay in Manhattan after WWII because of rent control. Look at places like Stuyvesant Town. It was a bastion of nurses, soldiers returning from war, and others who would have been kicked out of the City had it not been for rent control. Without it, many of the poor and middle class would have been priced out of the City. You keep ignoring this fact.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Well, when landlords are allowed to raise rent with scant regard to the inflation rate or increases in wages, you will have a schism.

Landlords can only get away with raising rents when the market allows them to do so and in addition raising rents insures efficiency in the marketplace as those who are renting more than they need (e.g. wealthy people like ex-NYC mayor Ed Koch) are force to decide if they really need to rent an apartment which is beyond their needs.

This is extremely unhealthy and distressing because we are talking about an inelastic product here. In New York, we have a lot of extremely rich foreigners investing in real estate because they do not trust their governments at home. This is driving up property values and some people cannot keep up.

The inelasticity is only inherent in a rent control market and not a by product of a non-rent control market where apartment renters and landlords are each competing with their counterparts. In a rent control market competition is removed because you are increasingly only left with 2 outlets for renters which is either they qualify for subsidized housing or they are wealthy enough to pay whatever premium is demanded in market place where only high end apartments are provided due to there not being any sort of profit motive to create middle-income or low-income apartments by the private sector.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You don't even know what you're talking about. There are many laws that regulate NYC apartments so that crap you're spewing can be easily addressed. Also, rent control keeps people in their homes. The very same middle class people that you claim it is hurting were allowed to stay in Manhattan after WWII because of rent control.
Look at places like Stuyvesant Town. It was a bastion of nurses, soldiers returning from war, and others who would have been kicked out of the City had it not been for rent control. Without it, many of the poor and middle class would have been priced out of the City. You keep ignoring this fact.

You're only right in that if there were no rent control some of those people would be living elsewhere and those entering the market place would have a better chance at attaining more affordable apartments. Than again high prices would of induced developers to enter the market place with new apartments for those looking to rent at a middle-income level. Yet under a rent control atmosphere this incentive to provide more affordable housing is diminished over time as there is no profit incentive for developers to sate the demand in a rent control market at the lower levels of the economic scale. Sadly you completely ignore or do not understand how profit incentivizes others to produce more to take advantage of high demand or how that demand will eventually taper off and a glut of apartments is left to cause rents to decline only to be filled up and than cause more demand which spurs more development, etc.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Well, when landlords are allowed to raise rent with scant regard to the inflation rate or increases in wages, you will have a schism. This is extremely unhealthy and distressing because we are talking about an inelastic product here. In New York, we have a lot of extremely rich foreigners investing in real estate because they do not trust their governments at home. This is driving up property values and some people cannot keep up.

How dare the market comply to supply and demand!!!


I deserve my penthouse apartment in the city! I have 3 kids, no job, no baby daddy, so who is going to feed me and my kids?????? Who is going to pay my rent????




Disgusting.

 

[Dari]

Landlords can only get away with raising rents when the market allows them to do so and in addition raising rents insures efficiency in the marketplace as those who are renting more than they need (e.g. wealthy people like ex-NYC mayor Ed Koch) are force to decide if they really need to rent an apartment which is beyond their needs.



The inelasticity is only inherent in a rent control market and not a by product of a non-rent control market where apartment renters and landlords are each competing. In a rent control market competition is removed because you are increasingly only left with 2 outlets for renters which is either they qualify for subsidized housing or they are wealthy enough to pay whatever premium is demanded in market place where only high end apartments are provided due to there not being any sort of profit motive to create middle-income or low-income apartments by the private sector.

God damn you're dumb. You keep talking theory while I am talking reality. Is this your first year in college? Or high school econ? No need to try to impress me, kiddo, I have a doctorate in Economics. Also, I live in New York and see firsthand what you are just theorizing. I have no idea where you live but it seems like you are seeing things from an academic point of view.

 

[Dari]

How dare the market comply to supply and demand!!!


I deserve my penthouse apartment in the city! I have 3 kids, no job, no baby daddy, so who is going to feed me and my kids?????? Who is going to pay my rent????




Disgusting.

Haha. My post above applies to you too. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about either. Educate yourself before spewing bullshit.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Haha. My post above applies to you too. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about either. Educate yourself before spewing bullshit.

B-b-b-b-b-but I worked hard in my inner city school!! I never went to college, just got my GED, but I deserve the top floor city view!!!! Where can I vote in some of that rent control that I deserve? Just txt 'pro handouts' on the obamaphone.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

 

[DucatiMonster696]

God damn you're dumb. You keep talking theory while I am talking reality. Is this your first year in college? Or high school econ? No need to try to impress me, kiddo, I have a doctorate in Economics. Also, I live in New York and see firsthand what you are just theorizing. I have no idea where you live but it seems like you are seeing things from an academic point of view.

Right...genius. You haven't actually proven anything other than spouting off what you think. Obviously your opinion on the matter trumps that of all the cited work of major economists in the US of whose political affiliations run the spectrum political views. You know better. LOLOL.

In this regard I actually agree with someone like Paul Krugman when he state the wanton ignorance of others on the issue of rent control.

"But people literally don't want to know. A few months ago, when a San Francisco official proposed a study of the city's housing crisis, there was a firestorm of opposition from tenant-advocacy groups. They argued that even to study the situation was a step on the road to ending rent control -- and they may well have been right, because studying the issue might lead to a recognition of the obvious."

 

[Dari]

Right...genius. You haven't actually proven anything other than spouting off what you think. Obviously your opinion on the matter trumps that of all the cited work of major economists in the US of whose political affiliations run the spectrum political views. You know better. LOLOL.

In this regard I actually agree with someone like Paul Krugman when he state the wanton ignorance of others on the issue of rent control.

Have you noticed that I am not disagreeing with you? I am merely stating that, while in theory, you may be right, this isn't about economics per se. It is about socioeconomic rights. I live in New York and my apartment could buy a multi-acre ranch in the south. That was the marketprice. In fact, the cost of property did not go into a tailspin during the recession, unlike other places. It rose steadily. How do I know all this? A family member is a real estate developer. The New York market is hot now (because of those foreigners) and, left to their own devices, property owners would jack up prices as high as possible.

But, we don't live in a purely capitalistic society. Government has to take care of those that are poor and the needy. That means enacting laws that does not force people to leave their jobs, families, and communities.

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand.

 

[NoStateofMind]

but but government must fix all my ills. oh worries me what shall I do?

Go get a job and stop your whining. Can't get a job? Seek charity but keep my money out of it.

 

[NoStateofMind]

But, we don't live in a purely capitalistic society. Government has to take care of those that are poor and the needy. That means enacting laws that does not force people to leave their jobs, families, and communities.

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Do they? Or is this what you have been bred to believe?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

but but government must fix all my ills. oh worries me what shall I do?

Go get a job and stop your whining. Can't get a job? Seek charity but keep my money out of it.

The best part, is even per our resident Dari/airdata, is that this isn't about eating or essentials... It's about wanting a nice place in the city, and how the goverment should help provide that.

So disgusting.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Have you noticed that I am not disagreeing with you? I am merely stating that, while in theory, you may be right, this isn't about economics per se. It is about socioeconomic rights. I live in New York and my apartment could buy a multi-acre ranch in the south. That was the marketprice. In fact, the cost of property did not go into a tailspin during the recession, unlike other places. It rose steadily. How do I know all this? A family member is a real estate developer. The New York market is hot now (because of those foreigners) and, left to their own devices, property owners would jack up prices as high as possible.

But, we don't live in a purely capitalistic society. Government has to take care of those that are poor and the needy. That means enacting laws that does not force people to leave their jobs, families, and communities.

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand.

And I''m telling you that your claims as to why it is done is false especially given the very well known and cited economic effects of rent control over the long term and how it basically attacks and undermines those on the lower end of the economic ladder. The real reason why such policies are kept in place has more to do with political reasoning rather then actual economic reasoning which has long ago proven such policies to be counter-intuitive in that it:

1.) does not control or stabilize rents in the long term

2.) does not increase the supply of affordable rental units for middle or lower income families.

3.)does not incentivize landlords to maintain or increase the quality of affordable rental units left on the marketplace.

In the end you're claim as to why it is being done is false and the real reasons as to why such a destructive economic policy is kept in place has more to do with the political expediency and politicians bowing before private interests who benefit from rent control policies.


I really don't understand why this is so difficult for YOU to understand.

Edit: Why is it the NYC's government feels the need to pass out rent vouchers? Hmmm...could it be that the "rent control" policy has basically steadily cause the prices for rents to climb higher and higher and that this policy has removed all profit motive for developers (outside of those who are politically connected and can attain low income housing development contracts) to build or sustain low income housing (along side middle income housing) because they have no substantial profit margin left to do so and would rather cater to "those foreigners" who can afford to pay higher prices for luxury units?

 

[Dari]

And I''m telling you that your claims as to why it is done is false especially given the very well known and cited economic effects of rent control over the long term and how it basically attacks and undermines those on the lower end of the economic ladder. The real reason why such policies are kept in place has more to do with political reasoning rather then actual economic reasoning which has long ago proven such policies to be counter-intuitive in that it:

1.) does not control or stabilize rents in the long term

2.) does not increase the supply of affordable rental units for middle or lower income families.

3.)does not incentivize landlords to maintain or increase the quality of affordable rental units left on the marketplace.

In the end you're claim as to why it is being done is false and the real reasons as to why such a destructive economic policy is kept in place has more to do with the political expediency and politicians bowing before private interests who benefit from rent control policies.


I really don't understand why this is so difficult for YOU to understand.

Ok, let me explain it to you in very simple terms. Rent control lowers the rate of rent inflation. Does it have unintended consequences? Yes. As for your quip about rent control increasing the quality of affordable rental units, that is the purview of governments because no private property owner will build and rent to low income people without government backing. It just does not make economic sense. So the government does just that, whether it's government housing or government-backed housing. Build owners chase high margins clienteles. This is not hard to understand. They will never go after the low income residents because the margins are lower and risky. I don't know of any fantasy, low regulation community where low income residents are served by the private sector. No where. This isn't just a New York problem. It exists everywhere. You constantly harping about supply and demand underscores the fact that you don't even understand what you're talking about beyond freshman economics.

 

[glenn1]

Ok, let me explain it to you in very simple terms. Rent control lowers the rate of rent inflation. Does it have unintended consequences? Yes. As for your quip about rent control increasing the quality of affordable rental units, that is the purview of governments because no private property owner will build and rent to low income people without government backing. It just does not make economic sense. So the government does just that, whether it's government housing or government-backed housing. Build owners chase high margins clienteles. This is not hard to understand. They will never go after the low income residents because the margins are lower and risky. I don't know of any fantasy, low regulation community where low income residents are served by the private sector. No where. This isn't just a New York problem. It exists everywhere. You constantly harping about supply and demand underscores the fact that you don't even understand what you're talking about beyond freshman economics.

So much fail in one post, and from a supposed PhD in economics. Thanks to Dari, I now know that apartments for lower income renters are never supplied by the private sector due to low margins. Then with no irony whatsoever says high prices require rent control as if that doesn't influence the profit margin of those same apartments. All because Captain Obvious refuses to make the connection between the two due to his political inclinations.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Ok, let me explain it to you in very simple terms. Rent control lowers the rate of rent inflation.

This is false and all one has to do to prove this point is false is to look at the markets in which rent control has been enacted and chart their course over a few decades. Or better yet look at the decades worth of economic data which has already made the issue of whether rent control actually stabilizes/control rents to be a moot issue among economists who have reached a consensus of such statements being false.

Does it have unintended consequences? Yes. As for your quip about rent control increasing the quality of affordable rental units, that is the purview of governments because no private property owner will build and rent to low income people without government backing.

And if government forces landlords to maintain higher standards for their units what do you think they will do once a tenant moves out or dies off? Oh that's right they'll convert those apartments to luxury high rent units which fall out of the domain of rent control, or they'll keep those units off the market and only available to family members in the case on in-law units and thus add to the continued decline of affordable rental units in a city. Meanwhile those who still have rent control tenants only invest as much money as needed to barely comply with any law which forces them to provide upkeep for rent controlled units.

It just does not make economic sense. So the government does just that, whether it's government housing or government-backed housing. Build owners chase high margins clienteles. This is not hard to understand.

Basically you are echoing my point in that rent control eventually only leaves 2 options those being low income subsidized housing paid for by tax payers and high income luxury units affordable only those willing to pay a premium for quality units.

They will never go after the low income residents because the margins are lower and risky.

False. Margins are only lower to the point of not going after in rent control cities where prices for rents are artificially capped and yet developers do go after lower end markets for apartments when their is no rent cap (aka price ceiling) which prohibits them from earning a profit and same goes for landlords who themselves make no money if their apartments are left empty because the rents are to high in a low income neighborhood.

I don't know of any fantasy, low regulation community where low income residents are served by the private sector. No where. This isn't just a New York problem. It exists everywhere. You constantly harping about supply and demand underscores the fact that you don't even understand what you're talking about beyond freshman economics.

The only fantasy is the one you've built for yourself in your mind which disregards all economic consensus on the issue. Furthermore cities all across the US without rent control polices (e.g. San Diego CA, Austin TX, etc) have shown to have more stable prices and better ranges of affordable apartments than cities have enacted rent control police in false attempt to control the market place for rental units.

 

[Dari]

So much fail in one post, and from a supposed PhD in economics. Thanks to Dari, I now know that apartments for lower income renters are never supplied by the private sector due to low margins. Then with no irony whatsoever says high prices require rent control as if that doesn't influence the profit margin of those same apartments. All because Captain Obvious refuses to make the connection between the two due to his political inclinations.

The private sector does get involved, but only when the government guarantees income and loans. Rent control is inherent in these low income homes. As for buildings that are privately owned, should they offer rent-stabilized apartments and take the tax breaks, they are obliged to follow rent control regulation.

 

[Dari]

This is false and all one has to do to prove this point is false is to look at the markets in which rent control has been enacted and chart their course over a few decades. Or better yet look at the decades worth of economic data which has already made the issue of whether rent control actually stabilizes/control rents to be a moot issue among economists who have reached a consensus of such statements being false.




And if government forces landlords to maintain higher standards for their units what do you think they will do once a tenant moves out or dies off? Oh that's right they'll convert those apartments to luxury high rent units which fall out of the domain of rent control, or they'll keep those units off the market and only available to family members in the case on in-law units and thus add to the continued decline of affordable rental units in a city. Meanwhile those who still have rent control tenants only invest as much money as needed to barely comply with any law which forces them to provide upkeep for rent controlled units.





Basically you are echoing my point in that rent control eventually only leaves 2 options those being low income subsidized housing paid for by tax payers and high income luxury units affordable only those willing to pay a premium for quality units.



False. Margins are only lower to the point of not going after in rent control cities where prices for rents are artificially capped and yet developers do go after lower end markets for apartments when their is no rent cap (aka price ceiling) which prohibits them from earning a profit and same goes for landlords who themselves make no money if their apartments are left empty because the rents are to high in a low income neighborhood.



The only fantasy is the one you've built for yourself in your mind which disregards all economic consensus on the issue. Furthermore cities all across the US without rent control polices (e.g. San Diego CA, Austin TX, etc) have shown to have more stable prices and better ranges of affordable apartments than cities have enacted rent control police in false attempt to control the market place for rental units.

I'm not really interested in this argument because it is completely off-topic and I feel that we are going in circles. You are also making simple assumptions and overly reliant on theory. That, and I'm bored.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This would make sense if they had a job lined up where they're moving to or had friends or family there. Social mobility is easy when you are single. It is extremely difficult when you have a family and are already poor.

I seem to remember a time when you as the family packed up your shit into a wagon and moved towns when there was nothing there anymore

Why does everyone think something today in the modern world is more difficult to do today? So mind boggling stupid of a concept that you CANT move. Now it is more than ever easy - the only problem is a lack of initiative when people will just pay for you to stay. Hell, now you know where jobs are and what towns are thriving BEFORE you just venture out. if you got a PhD in Economics it must have been from DeVry University and accompanied with a degree in stupidity

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Time for NYC and environs to form the 51st state. Heaven knows we pay enough already for their mandated policies. I've been told we're so fortunate to have them running us because NYC is so wonderful, let them have their greatness to themselves.

 

[Jeffg010]

It be cheaper to to rent a carniva cruise line for $500 a week for family of 4. It would only cost 26k a year. Who would not want a free cruise? Just build a boat and ship off all the poor mother fuckers out to sea.

 

[OutHouse]

The amount of money they make there could get a couple of acres in Georgia

how much do they make?

 

[nehalem256]

The best part, is even per our resident Dari/airdata, is that this isn't about eating or essentials... It's about wanting a nice place in the city, and how the goverment should help provide that.

So disgusting.

You obviously missed the thread where someone was talking about how in Denmark single mothers get $60,000/yr in benefits from the government including free international vacations and leftists still complain it is not enough.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I'm not really interested in this argument because it is completely off-topic and I feel that we are going in circles. You are also making simple assumptions and overly reliant on theory. That, and I'm bored.

This is to funny for words. You're calling one of the most well cited, documented and understood and almost universally agreed upon positions in economics a theory. That's like saying 2+2 = 4 is a nice theory but it has no relation to the real world.

LOLOL

Yeah I guess this conversation is done as I'm arguing with someone who willfully refuses acknowledge any points and continues barreling on like a dump truck despite the mountains of data and case studies in the field of economics which disproves their personal opinion when it comes to the effects and outcomes of rent control.