On a rent control tear right now trying to find the strong voices of opposition and their reasons for opposing deregulation. It's hard to find sites that tell why they are either for or against rent control laws. I have come across one alarming fact. There are laws in NYC that allow apartments to be deregulated if they are upgraded to "luxury status" (rent of $2000 or more) once the current tenant leaves. It's call vacancy decontrol. Moreover, all apartments, once vacated, are eligible for vacancy decontrol. Consequently, you have horrible tales of sky-rocketting rents. This is worse than deregulation, it's piecemeal deregulation. An end to rent control should not come on an as-vacated basis. Nothing could be more destructive to fair housing costs than the laws currently on the books or something like them. We need to end rent control on all apartments at once. That is, the two bedroom downtown apartment that currently rents for $400 needs to immediately rise. Regardless of whether the tennant stays or goes, the rent must increase. This will let the air out of the rent bubble that is currently inflated over the available housing in the city. One million apartments, deregulated at once (or very quickly in succession), are not all going to skyrocket in price. Markets simply don't work that way. There won't be enough demand to support the high prices that are currently supplied for apartments. The Small Property Owners of America were the ones responsible for deregulation in Massachusetts which has worked, by all statistical accounts, very well. Specifically, see the post about the "quiet end" of rent control. Some of the predictions seem familiar to the ones in New York.
- posted by levinson @ 7/20/2001 09:33:00 AM