Comments
idratherbeintamriel t1_jb7dk6q wrote
The issue is (I’m currently dealing with this in my building) is that the renovations aren’t actually happening. So these apartments are being deregulated illegally.
funforyourlife t1_jb80zdv wrote
Oh yeah, I figured, and that's bullshit, but it still seems funny to me that the example in the article is that they found a building that "appears to have undergone a rehab inside and out".
I don't know how the system is designed but it seems pretty easy to set up a points system where "one coat paint" does not mean you can raise rent, but "replaced oven, replaced pre-1950 windows with double-paned windows, replaced leaky 1974 toilet with modern dual flush, replaced water damaged 1983 drywall, AND added one coat of paint" would qualify as substantial improvement.
woman_thorned t1_jb80b49 wrote
I followed the renovations of my last building which had routine ceiling cave ins and a very unsafe central staircase.
They did nothing structural.
They made a nice one bedroom into a terrible 2 bedroom with no living room, doubled the rent, and it has turned over every year since, most recently with a rent REDUCTION, meaning no one renews, meaning it's still unsafe.
These landlords are not doing what they claim they are doing.
mowotlarx t1_jb7gqcp wrote
>There is no requirement for landlords to register substantial rehabilitation work to HCR, according to Josephson, who said notifications to the agency are in effect a voluntary process adhered to by property owners in only “a small minority of the cases.”
>HCR could, in theory, question why buildings that have previously registered rent-stabilized units suddenly do not, Josephson added — but the state agency “doesn’t really have the capacity to check every apartment that disappears off the rolls,” he said
They aren't actually fixing the units. And there's no system to make sure they did and aren't lying. And is hazard to guess almost all of them are lying. That's the issue.
Silvery_Silence t1_jbawchc wrote
Uh a sharp decrease in regulated units when the city needs more, not less, of them is not a good thing, no actually. Exploiting loopholes to remove apartments from regulation is not a good thing. The loophole should not exist or someone should be enforcing this better so that it’s not exploited merely to remove apartments from regulation.
ShatteringFast t1_jbdnlkv wrote
A lot of people would happily pay $1500 less in rent per month and you can keep your 3’ granite countertop and particle board flooring.
fsuthundergun t1_jb91vgk wrote
Landlords are scum.
StoryAndAHalf t1_jb74y4i wrote
The article is weird as it paints Ridgewood in a way that it seems like a victim. First off, it’s not gentrifying. Prices going up is not a sign of gentrification in itself. Rent burden is lower in Ridgewood than neighboring areas as well as borough - meaning the area is more affluent even if it’s not in Manhattan standards. I will say that yes, housing did triple, and rent is stupid high. That has not happened overnight, this is 2+ decades of constant increases.
Secondly, it fails to go into history of Ridgewood which has historically been occupied by Italian and German populations before Hispanic populations in mid-2000s. The Hispanic population is still large, but like the German and Italian populations, gave way to new expats, with increasing Black population from Bushwick to the west. There have also been expats from different states as well but no not “general white people” whatever that means.
iknowyouright t1_jbardqq wrote
Do you live in Ridgewood? I've been here almost a decade and to say Ridgewood isn't gentrifying is insane.
We went from shitty Chinese food and Corato's pizza to having two Michelin Star restaurants in like 4 years. The amount of kitchy knick-knack shops on Woodward ave is insane, and they are almost all newly in business in the last 4 years as well.
StoryAndAHalf t1_jbas6nr wrote
Been there for more than 2 decades actually.
E: to address those kitschy stores - Ridgewood has had stores open and close every year. I remember Ridgewood theater, I remember FYE, the Wendy’s before current one, ABC moving 3 times, KMart, even a damn beepers store. A decade ago, there were like 4 locations of Esparks (like Starbucks, but blue). So it’s not just last 4 years. It’s been like this as far as I remember.
iknowyouright t1_jbavuam wrote
Well I'll believe you since you've been here so long, but damn if rents haven't skyrocketed alongside these Williamsburg-lite stores. It certainly feels like gentrification
StoryAndAHalf t1_jbaw7ao wrote
My parents bought their house for 200k in late 90s. Before then we lived in Brooklyn. By the time I was looking for homes in the area, maybe 2012 or 2013, they were 750k average. Now over a million. So yeah, it’s been crazy trying to stay in the neighborhood.
b1argg t1_jbjoo41 wrote
It's also Polish
euge_bush t1_jb7sl97 wrote
sites like thecity and curbed are re shill sites
absreim t1_jbalr6a wrote
How about completely getting rid of rent stabilization so that we don't need to be concerned by details like these?
natekrinsky t1_jbaqhmk wrote
If everyone was homeless we wouldn't need to care about rising rent.
Silvery_Silence t1_jbawqd0 wrote
Because thousands of families including mine rely on it to be able to afford to live here maybe? And yes I work and yes I make a pretty good income. I’ve had my place for many years and it has enabled me to live here, work here, pay taxes here and raise my kid here so far.
But yes let’s just get rid of the already paltry rent protections a minority of New Yorkers have which will go a long way to helping the severe affordable housing crunch here. Excellent idea.
absreim t1_jbb1fbp wrote
>Because thousands of families including mine rely on it to be able to afford to live here maybe?
What about the families who want to live in NYC but can't because they need to pay market rate to subsidize lower rent for people like you?
Why do you think you deserve preferential treatment?
Silvery_Silence t1_jbb8ld9 wrote
Oh is that how it works? FYI I’ve been here over 20 years and I don’t feel guilty at all for being in a stabilized apartment. Again I work for a living, always have, literally no one is subsidizing my life. But yes let’s just kick out a slew of working families because you think that’s fair for some reason. Or maybe we should tax the rich more and not shit all over middle and working class families.
Silvery_Silence t1_jbb8szv wrote
It’s also funny how you assume the rising cost of housing is somehow the fault of people who have stabilized apartments. Would love to see data on that.
euge_bush t1_jb7emhj wrote
i can't take thecity.nyc seriously lmao
beagle_bathouse t1_jb9ohp2 wrote
Guess I should read tHe ReAl DEaL
funforyourlife t1_jb731x5 wrote
It's strange that the article tries to paint renovation in a bad light. Aren't improvements of dilapidated property a good thing?
Like, Isn't this a good thing:
"A three-story, six-unit walk-up building at 1819 Grove St. is one area property that appears to have undergone a rehab inside and out, with a group of new tenants who moved in earlier this year. "
Encouraging things to fall into ruin seems like bad policy. We shouldn't let landlords remove stock from stabilization for no reason, but it feels like good policy to say: "either keep rent cheap OR significantly improve the property"
So it seems to be working as intended