By Gus Saltonstall
There are still nearly a million rent-stabilized apartments in New York City, including roughly 25,000 units on the Upper West Side as of 2014, according to one of the few in-depth studies done on mapping the units in the five boroughs in recent years.
In June, the city’s Rent Guidelines Board will vote on what percentage landlords can raise rents on these stabilized apartments beginning on October 1, 2024.
This month, the Board cast a preliminary vote in favor of a 2 percent to 4.5 percent increase for one-year leases and 4 percent to 6.5 percent increases for two-year leases on rent-stabilized apartments.
Before the final vote is cast, though, there will be multiple public hearings where residents can voice their concerns over increases to rent-stabilized apartments, including on the Upper West Side.
There will be a public meeting on June 11 within the Ethical Culture Society at 2 West 64th Street, off the corner of Central Park West, from 5 to 8 p.m. You can watch the meeting through a YouTube feed, but you must participate in person if you want to testify. The location is wheelchair accessible.
The preliminary hikes on rent-stabilized apartments this year follow the board’s decision in 2023 to approve 3 percent increases for one-year leases, 2.75 percent increases for the first year of two-year leases, and 3.2 percent hikes for the second year of two-year leases.
Mayor Eric Adams has already come out with a statement urging the board to stick to the low-end of the possible increase spectrum, and specifically called out a 6.5 percent increase as being unreasonable.
“Tenants are feeling the squeeze of a decades-long affordability crisis, which has been accelerated by restrictive zoning laws and inadequate tools that have made it harder and harder to build housing,” Adams said in the statement. “The Board has the challenging task of striking a balance between protecting tenants from infeasible rent increases and ensuring property owners can maintain their buildings as costs continue to rise, I must be clear that a 6.5% increase goes far beyond what is reasonable to ask tenants to take on.”
The final vote will take place on June 17.
You can check out the full schedule of events the Rent Board is overseeing before casting its final vote — HERE.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here.
If the mayor wants lower increases, he can instruct his dept of finance to stop increasing property taxes by a compound annual rate of 5% overt the last 15 years. These increases impact everything; market rate rentals, rent stabilized rentals and co-ops.
Caps on rent without caps on city-imposed cuts don’t make sense.
Or how about this one?
“On May 3rd, the NYC Water Board met with the DEP. The DEP proposed to raise the water sewer rate by 8.5% resulting in a rate of $12.61/HCF, effective 7/1/2024. This represents the largest increase since Mike Bloomberg left office.”
Maybe we should start tying any assessment, tax, or municipal rate increase to the RGB increases. See how vociferously opposed to rent increases they are then.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/nyregion/water-bills-nyc.html
Many UWS residents are retired and on fixed income. I’m one of them. A 6.5% increase would be devastating for me. I’ve watched with horror as the neighborhood has gone from diverse, multi-income population to the playground of the stockbroker/lawyer class (and their spoiled kids).
We are in a time of high inflation. Are the building owners just supposed to take a huge loss for your benefit? Meanwhile, your social security was adjusted up 3.2% in response to this inflation.
I’m rapidly approaching retirement age. But I might work a year or two longer than I wanted to in order to make sure I have a financially secure retirement. So many people fail to plan ahead – retire too early, have kids they can’t afford, plan trips they can’t afford. Everyone should be able to have their basic needs met. But some level of self-responsibility would be nice too.
Trying being in a market rental like most of the neighborhood, 6% would be a relief. While its nice for the lucky few, rent control has not solved out of control rents in NYC, the only way to improve affordability is to build more apartments.
That’s a really nice and welcoming way to speak about your neighbors….nothing like speaking in broad sweeping generalities.
Not everyone has a rent stabilized apartment like yourself. All those stockbroker/lawyers are paying for their apartments at a market rate – so why do you loathe that? They also face unlimited increases in their rent compared to yourself which is a marginal increase at best. I get if you want to gripe your rent going up for a few bucks but trust me, the people you are calling out are paying even more and face even higher increases.
Those making huge salaries and paying market rates are still in a better position to pay those amounts than a senior on a fixed income (SS, which has never raised any annual increase anything like what the actual increases in housing, food, etc. are each year, at all. The last large SS increase meant nothing. Why? Because Medicare insurance went up and for almost everyone, it wiped out the increase right there. Rising food costs? The way SS increases are calculated does not even reflect actual living cost increases)
Folks making lots of money, who can afford multi-million dollar apartments and high rents have choices about where to live and what to pay. Seniors on fixed income with no way to move anywhere more affordable if on a stabilized lease are stuck. Literally. They go without food or other needed services because they can’t afford it (not every hard working person had a job that paid a decent living wage for this city and allowed anyone to save anything). Why rich people begrudge those who have fewer resources is beyond me. If anything, if I were rich, I’d be working to create better -paying jobs for folks and make housing more equitable. People carry on about rent stabilized neighbors but nothing about the greedy developers who create overpriced housing and get tax breaks for doing so while contributing nothing for the average working person in the city, who actually keep it running. And those rich folks from around the world that buy here and don’t live here, nor pay taxes? Nobody has a problem with that, right?
You make a ton of bad faith arguments here.
There are many many rent stabilized folks that are extremely well off and extremely well paid and have the funds to move and simply stay put taking advantage of artificially low rent. Many of these seniors actually do have the money to live somewhere else and choose not to. There are some, including in buildings I have lived in, that benefit even more by never even having a real job because they understand their rent is artificially low, scooting by on their social security forever because they never needed to pay much in rent.
No offense, but you are almost talking “down” to the people in rent stabilized apartments, assuming they are all poor or on their last penny. Many of them had or even have jobs, have large retirement accounts, etc. Your not stuck with a stabilized lease, you’ve had your entire life to plan and move. Simply – your like everyone else.
It’s disingenuous to live in a building for 50 years paying a few hundred dollars in rent and assuming that will never, ever change.
Also, your notion of being “rich” is simply ridiculous. Yes, in NYC there are rich people. Yes there are middle class. You can’t just lump everyone in a bucket who pays market rent and say “rich bad”.
“There are many many rent stabilized folks that are extremely well off and extremely well paid and have the funds to move and simply stay put taking advantage of artificially low rent. ”
And whose fault is that?
Democrats who control Albany took away luxury decontrol as part of 2019 rent laws.
Would you mind if I chime in? I find your argument agreeable. Here is my concern…My mother lives likely in one of these buildings and it sounds like she is one of those folks that feel in love with decades of very cheap rent. I dont know how cheap it is, she wont tell me. At age 14, she gave me up to live in this city and for years i have lived in pure terror reading the news and I report on youtube also on my own channel the rise in hatred, violence and so..not only did my mother break my heart by moving to NYC in 94, and was apparently enabled by this cheap rent to leave her son behind but now shes possibly in danger having no SS at all, using the subway to do work to pay for dental implants from the dental school?! and so much more… im scared for her and for me. Im on twitter , x and the anti white woman violence is over the top and i can do nothing financially to help her but she does listen to my podcasts. thanks for letting me share.
Pray for her as shes in your hood and ill pray for you all too.
If you’re retired and living on a fixed income chances you have been living decades in your rent stabilized apartment. As such, your living expenses have been minimal all these years and you should have a lot of savings.
You can very likely afford a 6.5% increase in rent (which is long overdue).
Seriously? You know how low the minimum wage is and what that translates to in terms of buying power? I know men and women who have worked as caregivers (one of the most underpaid jobs, still) for decades and other barely living wage jobs. Never took any kind of help from city or state or Federal governments. They could barely live and you think they should have saved? You trying living in this city, alone or with children on well under $50,000. Clearly you are clueless as to the costs of living here for people making very low hourly wage. Thinking they even had any discretionary income to save when they could not even afford food or rent or transportation at times even while working full time? I guess you have never known how others live.
For every person you mention that’s poor you forgot about the higher number that could easily leave rent stabilized for the poor, but instead stay forever. I think you should direct your frustration to them.
while there are some small percent of people in rent stabilized apartments who have high incomes, in general rent stabilized tenants have lower average incomes than people in market rate apts or condos/coops.
it is also a myth that rent stabilized apartments average “a few hundred dollars.” they average below market rate apartments but are not these extreme good deals. The rent goes up every year.
the rent stabilized apartment base is an important source of affordable housing in NYC. too bad that it went down by 50% on the UWS from the late 90s through the enactment of the new rent laws in 2019.
in addition, rent stabilized tenants bring a great deal of stability to buildings: they are much more stable than either condo owners or market rate tenants.
It is a further myth that landlords don’t make money on rent stabilized buildings. Stats from the Rent Guidelines Board shows that they do, as long as the building is not over-mortgaged.
Vote better or move.
My ConEd bill went from about $75/month for gas and electric to $110 (and we are not in AC season yet). My apartment insurance went from $750/year to $1,100. It must be nice to have government control the maximum amount you are required to pay for basic necessities.
Glen,
ConEd pricing is regulated. But not in the manner that the rents on rent stabilized apartments are.
Also, you use city water, the price for which is regulated.
So enjoy your “government control”.
I do not understand why being a landlord is the one business/investment that is never allowed to fail. I’m sorry if some years the landlords are squeezed and don’t make money — but that’s how every other business works.
Only housing do we assume the owner should make profits every year no matter what.
Let’s run with your argument here…So what happens if a landlord owns a number of apartment buildings and is, as you say, allowed to fail? What happens? That landlord could sell the building to someone. Do we think that this purchaser is going to lower rents or not increase them? Doubtful. Perhaps the buildings are financed and the landlord can’t pay the bank. The bank forecloses. Do you think they are going to lower rents or keep them stable? Doubtful.
If I am a business owner (which I am not) aren’t I going to do everything I can to ensure my business is successful? Why would I not counter increasing costs with increasing prices?
If they could charge market rents, it would not be an issue.
Sure cut property taxes. Then cut spending.
What NYC/NYS government services that you current use are you willing to give up?
And let’s take a look at what the city has been spending money on! Cherlaine McCray DeBlasio’s $1 billion for “ThriveNYC” pops to mind immediately and has never been accounted for. I am certain there are plenty of pet projects by Adams and his supporters that are siphoning city money into their pockets under the auspices of laudable social projects.
We don’t need rent stabilization, we just need enough market rate housing even if it means scaling back UWS historic districts to do it!
How’s the “market” working for medical coverage?
Some of the people in rent-stabilized apartments don’t need it— why should they leave? It’s like having hit the jackpot…
Meanwhile the rest of us pay high rents with no restrictions on renewal hikes.
I’m 70– I’ll definitely be working till I’m 80. Why do people retire and then complain about not having enough money? Retirement is a luxury not a “right.” Unrealistic for many. Get a job you like and stay active.
“Meanwhile the rest of us pay high rents with no restrictions on renewal hikes.”
That isn’t exactly true any longer:
https://gothamist.com/news/good-cause-eviction-protections-are-now-in-place-in-ny-heres-what-that-means
Thank you Doradiva and Irena for highlighting the plight of the many, many middle-class and lower income people in rent stabilized apartments here.
The rest of the comments sound like hired landlords’ lobbyists, or people who are falling for the propaganda created by them.
According to the annual lobbying report from the state Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government, landlords paid 1.1 million in 2022 to a lobbying firm called Fontas Advisors which is, in its own words, “a boutique government affairs consultancy” that lists 28 real estate companies in its client list. I don’t know what NY landlords paid Fontas in 2023, but I’m guessing it was at least as much, given the amount of absurdly inappropriate activism-type language used against tenants in the last few years
You are being manipulated by rich lobbyists to see lower income people in rent stabilized apartments as the bad guys, and wealthy landlords (remember that 1.1 million?) as victims.
WAKE UP.
Yes, we know.
The uber-rich buyers of luxury sky-mansions in the new towers are busy treating the poor people with “disdain.” The (mere) rich landlords are hiring lobbyists to post in anonymous comment boards and paint the poor people as “bad guys.”
The poor people are so so important to the rich people that the latter are spending every waking moment thinking of the former and how to stick it to them.
Doesn’t this whole “victim” shtick get tiresome?
Meanwhile, for more mortals, average market-rate people, costs of housing are up 30% since end-2019, yet you believe you should be exempt from 2-3% annual increase forever. We know you’re special – we didn’t know you were THAT special.
The victim shtick of the wealthy landlords is certainly getting tiresome, and is very unconvincing.
If you really want to stick it to wealthy landlords, you should support building more housing in every neighborhood in NYC.
Rent control or stabilization largely benefits tenants living in Manhattan. For other boroughs legal RS rent is usually higher than market rate.
About 60% to bit over 65% of all rental housing in NYC is rent controlled, rent stabilized, NYCHA and or otherwise directly or indirectly government controlled. That leaves small percentage of market rate tenants are merch of free market.
Past and current city government bend over backwards to assist “poor” and “low income” with housing, meanwhile middle income are largely left to fend for themselves. It’s a sad state of affairs when households earning six figures cannot find affordable housing in this city.
https://nypost.com/2024/05/22/real-estate/even-tech-workers-cant-afford-most-nyc-apartments-report/
B.B., you just inadvertantly made a point in favor of keeping rent stabilization. If some of those apartments are occupied by middle-income people (quite a few are), doesn’t it make sense to keep them there?
And are you really arguing that poor seniors and other low income people should be kicked out of their rent stabilized apartments and moved to public housing? – Assuming that it’s available, which it often isn’t. If it were your elderly grandparent, would you want them to be moved out of the neighborhood they’d lived in for 50 years just so that their apartment could be occupied by someone rich enough to afford the market rate?
So many of these comments basically come down to favoring the rich over the poor and middle-class. But naturally the rich still want a large population of lower income people to work in all the service and education and transportation and low-level medical positions that keep the city going, but who cares where they live. They’ll fend for themselves somehow, right? Not your problem.
When Boston ended RS it was done at vacancy for units with seniors and some other groups. No need to push or throw anyone out of their homes.
Many low income households including those made up of senior citizens/elderly living in RS or RC units aren’t always sitting pretty.
Good number are paying 33% or more of total household income towards rent. They are rent regulated version of “house poor”.
Persons you see going through trash bags in front of shops aren’t all the homeless. Many are persons living in rent regulated units doing what they can to survive.
Then you have fact many senior citizens or elderly are living in RS or RC housing that does not suit their needs.
Living on upper floors of a five or six floor older walk-up tenement is fine when one is 20 something, but at 50, 60 or above is often different matter.
Meanwhile back at the ranch two bits of news came out this week regarding rental housing in NYC.
A. Even those earning six figures are having difficulty finding affordable housing.
https://nypost.com/2024/05/22/real-estate/even-tech-workers-cant-afford-most-nyc-apartments-report/
B. Number of rent stabilized apartments is decreasing by numbers not seen in decades.
Part of this is due to units in buildings with expiring 421-a tax abatements. But you also have landlords using one of few remaining options open to them to get out from under RS system; demolishing entire building or major gut renovation of same.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/05/23/rent-stabilized-apartments-housing-drop/
How does everyone feel that Assembkywoman Linda Rosenthal took her grandmother’s rent stabilized unit ? Pretty much epitomizes the issue with no oversight and how Albany is totally corrupt as she is now the housing chair.
A lot if my neighbors in rent stabilized units have second homes…. what does everyone think should happen to those units? Clearly rent stabilization is not as simple as tenant advocates make it sound.
I’ll say it again; RS far as Manhattan and certain small parts of Brooklyn largely benefit well off white tenants. This includes Ms. Rosenthal who earns six figures as NYS elected official.
https://nypost.com/2024/02/17/us-news/linda-rosenthal-paying-just-1573-for-five-room-rent-stabilized-apartment/
Fact that Ms. Rosenthal’s family in all but name owns that apartment (succession rights are unlimited) is rather unfortunate.