Can someone explain the justification for rent-controlled apartments in NY?
By Taskr36
@Taskr36 (13963)
United States
April 23, 2012 1:02pm CST
The Supreme Court recently shot down a push to declare rent-controlled apartments unconstitutional under the Takings Clause of the 5th amendment. The Takings Clause states that private property cannot “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Rent-controlled apartments are common in New York The government forces landlords to rent out the units well below market value often making it difficult or impossible to profit. Now I know what you're thinking. Low income resident NEED affordable housing. I agree that people with low incomes need places to live. That, however, is not how rent-controlled apartments work. Millionaires can rent these apartments, living the high life for a low price. Charles Rangel, the crook who headed the ways and means committee until 2010, rents FOUR of them. He's not the only wealthy person with a rent controlled apartment either. Former Governor David Patterson has a nice rent-controlled apartment as does his father.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11rangel.html?pagewanted=all
The excuse started back during WWII apparently when they said there was a housing crisis. That "crisis" has apparently been lasting for the better part of a century and rich people like Charles Rangel really need 4 apartments to rent for themselves below market value.
4 people like this
7 responses
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
23 Apr 12
I don't think there should be a way the government can set prices in a free market. If they'd just stay out of private businesses things would be much better. People would avoid the expensive housing and gravitate toward the cheaper housing and if there were slumlords they'd take them to court in an ideal world.
People like Rangel will always find a way to take advantage of things like this. Just goes to show that everything the government puts its hand in gets tainted, misused or fails miserably.
2 people like this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
23 Apr 12
I know of a POS apartment complex in my town that's rent controlled.
It's the worst apartment housing in town. It's falling apart. Roaches. No siding. There have been at least four different owners that I can count.
Most people who live there leave the apartments in worse shape than they found them.
I don't know of any nice rent controlled apartments. Maybe the Commons, a newer place that opened up the road. I can't speak to that. All I know is that when we had the earthquake a few months back, that was the only apartment complex to suffer major damage.
Strange.
2 people like this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
25 Apr 12
The article says "Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, uses his fourth apartment, six floors, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence." - this makes me wonder if he taps taxpayers or campaign donations to help pay for it..
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
25 Apr 12
When it comes to politicians, I wonder about a bunch of things, rememeber they didn't 'know' insider trading was wrong for THEM. hhhhmmmmm???
@rogue13xmen13 (14403)
• United States
24 Apr 12
In California, affordable income housing and apartments are law because not everyone can afford to pay $1000 to $5000 for rent (which, surprisingly, is what most places can cost).
Honestly, I think that all states should have some sort of affordable housing and apartments because not everyone can afford to pay such high rent rates, especially those who have part-times jobs, or people who have just become currently unemployed.
To me, only people who really, REALLY need low income housing should have it, those who are millionaires should not be living in housing that is designed for people who cannot afford anything else.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
24 Apr 12
They wouldn't be that expensive if there was no rent control. It's a spiral that begins when the government tries to interfere in the market.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html
1 person likes this
@danishcanadian (28953)
• Canada
23 Apr 12
Why doesn't the government buy buildings for the purpose of rent control, only renting to those on low incomes, and leave private landlords alone?
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
23 Apr 12
They do that too. Housing projects are usually government-owned.
There's no upkeep. People live there for incredibly cheap or free, and after a few years, the tenants have treated them so horrifically that they need to be blown up and rebuilt.
I couldn't be positive here, but I think the intent of forcing it on private landlords is the hope that a private landlord will keep a stronger watch over the condition of the property -- basically the government admitting "hey, we're too inept to do it, so we'll just make you do it."
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
23 Apr 12
They don't have the incentive to keep them up, they are told how much they can charge for rent and it becomes to expensive to keep up, no motivation to keep them nice.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
23 Apr 12
Matersfish is right. Government-owned housing projects are the absolute worst. They are not maintained by the government, or the residents. They are used up like a can of soda and thrown away when done.
Some states, like New Jersey have better programs where foreclosed homes can be bought by landlords with help in the form of a government subsidy provided that the home is then rented out as low-income housing, subject to various income levels. It's not a bad system in theory, but it is horribly complicated which turns off both potential landlords and tenants. It also can create awkward situations where someone might get a raise or promotion which puts them out of the required income range leading to an eviction. My wife and I qualified for such housing at one point, but decided against it since we were only $5,000 a year shy of being too wealthy. It would have prevented her from getting an extra part time job and prevented me from applying for promotions.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
23 Apr 12
http://www.vinod.com/blog/News/ThomasSowellonRentControl.html
When the government favors one party over another, the one they were trying to 'help' always ends up worse off. Property owners quit investing in units and then we have a shortage of housing.
Same with minimun wage law, soon there are not any jobs for entry level due to employers not being able to afford the cost.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/03/20/race_and_rhetoric
1 person likes this
@muhsinhanis (104)
•
24 Apr 12
that governments and employers can hire apartment successfully due to theirs efforts...whether his efforts of a positive/negative....
