Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Category rent control

My Article at FreePo on the Resurrection of Rent Control

The Orange County Register’s new site, Freedom Politics just posted an article I wrote for them on rent control.  Here’s a snippet: In these days of economists constantly debating the right way to revive the economy, it seems like there is no way to find consensus among economists.  Economists don’t spend much time debating the issues they agree on, and to them, rent control is about as dead an issue as the earth revolving around the sun.  In 1992, 93% of American and Canadian economists surveyed agreed with the statement “A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”  Opposition to rent control among economists spans the political spectrum from Milton Friedman and Walter Block to leftist Nobel Laureates Gunnar Myrdal and Paul Krugman.  In fact, it was the socialist Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck who famously said, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing it." The article is part of a series called “Undead Ideas” and I’m told the article is supposed to feature a humorously hideous illustration of a zombie Richard Nixon, which is the reason for the Nixon joke.  I will share the illustration once it is public.     Could President Obama resurrect an undead Richard Nixon to implement nationwide rent control in the face of the impending stimflation?  There’s a 93% chance his economic advisors wouldn’t let him do such a thing.  However, Nixon’s undead corpse has been spotted mumbling "I am now a Keynesian" in places like California and New York City where bad ideas never seem to die. I actually thought of the word “stimflation” on my own, but I checked and learned I wasn’t the first to think of it.  The domain stimflation.com had just been reserved last week… […]

NY Rent Control Revival

In an act of pure legislative idiocy in the face of overwhelming consensus among economists against rent control, the New York State Assembly started the ball rolling to strengthen rent regulation. NY Times: The Democratic-led Assembly passed a broad package of legislation designed to restrain increases on rent-regulated apartments statewide. The legislation would essentially return to regulation tens of thousands of units that were converted to market rate in recent years. In addition, the legislation would reduce to 10 percent, from 20 percent, the amount that a landlord can increase the rent after an apartment becomes vacant; limit the owner’s ability to recover a rent-regulated apartment for personal use; and increase fines for landlords who are found to have harassed their tenants as a way of evicting them. The legislation would also repeal the Urstadt Laws’ provision that in 1971 effectively took away most of New York City’s authority to regulate rents and transferred it to the state. Opponents of the legislation are concerned that the New York City Council, known for its pro-tenant leanings, would enact laws that are unfavorable to landlords. Expect some amazingly ignorant quotes from legislators while this is debated: Linda B. Rosenthal, an assemblywoman who represents the Upper West Side, said that unless rent-regulation laws were changed, middle class people were at risk of being driven out of the city. Actually, rent control drives out the middle class, making housing only affordable to the rich and beneficiaries of subsidies and rent controls. New housing will be nearly impossible for middle class tenants to find. Plus, for those who favor one particular class of people over others, rent control increases class tensions… “Pretty soon we’re going to end up with a city of the very poor and the very rich,” Ms. Rosenthal said. “Our social fabric […]

Could NY Democrats Revive Rent Control?

New York State’s Assembly is now in Democratic control.  On many legislators wish list is to end the vacancy decontrol provisions that allow landlords to remove a unit from rent control if a tenant moves out and the unit rents for more than $2,000 per month.  (for those of you not in New York, apartments over $2,000 per month is actually almost all apartments in Manhattan and desirable locations of Brooklyn & Queens) Crains – Change in state Senate control could hurt landlords “Roadblocks to considering such legislation have been removed,” says Ms. Rosenthal, who represents the Upper West Side. “This will be at the top of many people’s agenda come January.” Of course, this is going to scare the crap out of landlords and renters of market-rate units. “With all of the current uncertainty, why would you throw another obstacle in the way of even more investment in housing in the city,” asks Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York. Mr. Spinola is also confident that Senate Democrats will not act quickly on housing laws. “They’re going to have enough trouble dealing with fiscal problems,” Mr. Spinola says. Maybe our wise legislators will take the time to learn about the microeconomics of rent control…

The Moral Case Against Rent Control

In Market Urbanism’s four part series on rent control, I avoided the topic of the morality of rent control, as I intended to address the economic issues and leave the morality to others. Thankfully, J. Brian Phillips of the Ad Hoc Committee for Property Rights is an expert on the subject. In his blog, he linked to the recent Retail Rent Control post, and took the time to address the moral issue: But the real issue isn’t political. The real issue is moral. A large part of the public sees nothing wrong with forcing others to provide for their wants and desires. And there is a steady stream of politicians all too eager to propose laws to grant them their wishes. They think that their wishes can somehow transform reality, that if they pass a law with the intention of creating affordable widgets, affordable widgets will result. They think that politicians are nothing more than genies who can grant their wish simply by writing a law. It doesn’t work that way. Reality is not malleable to one’s wishes. He makes plenty of good points, so I recommend reading the whole post. He concludes: Each individual has a moral right to live for his own happiness. He has a right to the fruits of his labor. He has a right to pursue his values without intervention from others, so long as he respects their mutual rights. Human beings are not sacrificial animals. Also, here’s another another article on the morality of rent control: Why Rent Control is Immoral by Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. The morality issue belongs as a prominent part of the rent control discussion, but is seldom heard among all the progressive anti-market rhetoric.

Retail Rent Control

Thanks to Bill Nelson for tipping me off to the article from The Villager (NYC): Retail rent control? A city councilmember planned to introduce a bill this week that will require small businesses and landlords to submit to arbitration in negotiating lease renewals if both parties can’t agree on a fair rent. The far-reaching measure, sought by Upper Manhattan Councilmember Robert Jackson and deemed by some as a form of commercial rent control, would set regulated increases not subject to landlords’ whims. The language of the proposed legislation — which mirrors a similar bill introduced in 1988 that fell one vote short of Council approval — looks to preserve small businesses in the current commercial landscape by prohibiting both short-term lease renewals and “rent gouging by greedy landlords.” According to the measure, lease renewals would be set at a minimum of 10 years unless otherwise agreed upon, and arbitration would only be triggered if either party disputes the law’s set rent-increase rates. Those rates, the proposed plan indicates, allow for no more than a 3 percent rent increase the first year; no more than a 15 percent increase by the last year of the lease over the previous lease; and no more than 3 percent incremental increases each year of the lease. The legislation would be applied on a case-by-case basis to all commercial tenants across the city, including manufacturing businesses, nonprofit organizations, performing arts and theater groups, retail establishments, service businesses and professional medical offices. When asked about the measure’s chances of success, Jackson’s chief of staff, Susan Russell, said she believes “the provisions are reasonable,” but acknowledged the language is subject to tweaking. “I think that this is something that’s worth sitting down at the table and talking about,” she added. Supporters claim that, in the current climate, […]

WSJ: Rent Control Is the Real New York Scandal

In case you didn’t catch it last weekend, Eileen Norcross wrote an excellent piece on rent control in New York. She touches on Charlie Rangel’s four rent control apartments scandal, some history of rent control in New York, the destructive results of rent control, vast inefficiencies caused by rent control, and moves to further subsidize low and middle income housing in New York. I found this paragraph to be particularly startling, and I would bet that the vacancy rate for stabilized apartments is well below the overall vacancy rate: New York has a city-wide vacancy rate of just 3% — and when good rent-stabilized apartments come on the market, you have to either know someone or pay someone (a broker, for example) to get it. The result is that many renters who pay below-market rents are reluctant to move — because it’s too difficult to get as good a deal elsewhere in the city. Thus, economists Ed Glaeser and Erzo Luttmer estimate that 21% of the city’s renters live in apartments that are bigger or smaller than they would otherwise occupy. The controlled rents certainly don’t increase the number of affordable apartments. This demonstrates the hoarding effect, which we can see hampers mobility and the ability of a location to adapt to market shifts. Norcross agrees, ending the rent control regime will be a step towards solving New York’s housing shortages: There is a better way to address the lack of reasonably priced housing in the city. If Rep. Rangel, Gov. Paterson and all the other well-to-do New Yorkers lost their rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments, there would be a loud public outcry to loosen regulation and allow more new construction.

Rangel Now Only Hoards Three Rent Controlled Apartments

[flickr photo: aznatca68] Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel has announced that he will vacate the rent controlled apartment he has been using as a campaign office. This apartment is just one of four rent controlled apartments he is hoarding in the Lenox Terrace apartment building in Harlem. NY Times – Rangel to Relinquish Apartment Used as Office: Representative Charles B. Rangel has decided to move his campaign office out of one of four rent-stabilized apartments he leases in Harlem, his spokesman said on Monday. One of the units — a one-bedroom apartment that he paid for with money from his re-election fund and from a political action committee — had been used as a campaign office, despite city and state guidelines that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used solely as a primary residence. Because that apartment is rent-stabilized, Mr. Rangel paid $630 per month, while similar market-rate units in the building rent for $1,700 a month and higher. Under House ethics rules, a gift is defined as any “gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value.” And some suggest that the difference between what Mr. Rangel pays for the second, third and fourth apartments and the market rate could fit that definition. . But Mr. Rangel said that it was ludicrous to consider the rent-stabilized apartments a gift because he paid rent for them. He also said that two of the units were combined by a previous tenant. Rangel should either resign or return every penny he saved by hoarding this apartment while using it as a campaign office. For this apartment alone, that should be $1,000 per month for as long as he has used it as a campaign office. Also: Reason – Rangel’s Down, But He’s Not Out

Congressman Rangel Legally Plunders $30,000/year in Four Rent Controlled Apartments

[update! Rangel Now Only Hoards Three Rent Controlled Apartments] In case you missed it, powerful New York Congressman Charlie Rangel has been hoarding four apartments in Harlem’s Lenox Terrace. Coincidently (perhaps not so coincidently) Lennox Terrace is the same building where New York’s Governor Patterson, Patterson’s father, former Manhattan Borough President, Percy E. Sutton, and Rangel’s Cheif of Staff, Jim Capel hoard rent-controlled (ahem, Rent Stabilized as it’s referred to by NY politicians) apartments. Not only does Rangel have four rent-controlled apartments in the building, but he has been using one of those apartments as a campaign office! [flickr photo: jschumacher] New York Times – Rangel Defends Use of Rent-Stabilized Apartments: The Times reported on Friday that Mr. Rangel has four rent-stabilized apartments at Lenox Terrace, including three adjacent units on the 16th floor overlooking Upper Manhattan, in a building owned by one of New York’s premier real estate developers. (The apartment is featured in “Style and Grace: African Americans at Home,” a book published by Bulfinch Press.) Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, uses his fourth apartment, six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence. Mr. Rangel, who has a net worth of $566,000 to $1.2 million, according to Congressional disclosure records, paid a total rent of $3,894 monthly in 2007 for the four apartments at Lenox Terrace, a 1,700-unit luxury development of six towers, with doormen, that is described in real estate publications as Harlem’s most prestigious address. The current market-rate rent for similar apartments in Mr. Rangel’s building would total $7,465 to $8,125 a month, according to the Web site of the owner, the Olnick Organization. The use of multiple apartments that might […]

Economakis Family Threatened by Friends of Rent Control

The Economakis family has been threatened my some members of the community who planned a protest tonight against their family using their own property as a home. See this truly despicable flyer calling friends of rent control to arms. [image from curbed] Here’s Mr. Economakis’ response: Response to the July 11, 2008 Protest – a threat to my family and property: I have always respected the rights of people to express themselves regarding my desire to make the building I own a home for me and my family. However, the latest expression of certain persons cannot go without comment. Our neighborhood was recently papered with a flyer announcing another protest in front of 47 East 3rd Street. This flyer states it is the work and the expression of a group identifying themselves as “LES” and is offensive on numerous fronts: not only for its profanity (is this really what our neighborhood children should be taught is an acceptable way to express oneself?) but for attributing to me the statement “Let Them Eat Cake”. I never made this statement nor any other like it. I find the statement offensive; and further I find its attribution to me to be threatening. As the statement was invoked to justify the death and destruction that came with the French Revolution, I hope that persons attending the protest do not mistakenly use it to justify the destruction of property. While I respect that people have the right to disagree with my position regarding wanting to make the building I own my home, and while I believe that these persons are allowed to exercise such disagreement through peaceful means, I am disturbed that the tenor of this protest is not only threatening in nature, but is also encouraging protestors to damage the very property they presumably […]

Quinn Proposes to Revamp Rent Control ‘Freakshow’

Curbed NY – Christine Quinn, Hands Off Our Freakshow! Fact: The biggest joke in New York is the Rent Guidelines Board. Every year this nine-member panel gathers to hold a series of circus-like public hearings on rent increases (or, heh, decreases) for stabilized apartments. Every year, tenant groups demand a rent freeze, and landlord groups demand double-digit increases. Every year, the increases fall somewhere in the middle (this year is a little high, though), following lots of shouting, some impromptu jam sessions and occasional nudity. But here’s the thing: it’s only now, when this annual theater is suddenly threatened, that we realize how much we’d miss the damn thing. Quinn (City Council Speaker) is supporting a state bill that would restructure the board (which is appointed by the mayor and includes two members representing tenants, two representing landlords, and five representing the “general public”), deny rent increases for one year on buildings with serious violations, and require the use of a tenant’s income and expenses in determining whether an increase is warranted. So, owners would be subject to the needs of their tenants? I doubt the “general public” she refers to includes the interests of the renters moving to New York or market rate renters… Also: NY Sun: Speaker Quinn Urges Overhaul of Rent Board

Trending now

A self-defeating argument
Texas MUD
gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation