Rangel Rents Apartments at Bargain Rates

[underpants]

Source: NYT

While aggressive evictions are reducing the number of rent-stabilized apartments in New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel is enjoying four of them, 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.

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.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11rangel.html?hp

[marmar]

1. Seems to me like the Times is trying to create an issue......

..... I know quite a few people in NYC who still live in rent-stabilized apartments. I guess I don't see the big deal.

[Raineyb]

2. I live in a rent-stabilized apartment

And if the Times really gave a damn about them they'd do a story about the despicable rent guideline board which seems to be an automatic stamp to give the landlords outrageous rent increases at a time when wages are flat.

8 1/2% increase on a 2 year lease is outrageous! In the past, when the landlord's costs were flat or declining, the rent guideline board granted the landlord rent increases. Now, when the landlord's complain about the cost of fuel (although going by my cheap bastard landlord God only knows where that's going since there's always days when there is no heat and hot water for "maintenance" which coincidentally always occur in the winter. Never any maintenance during the summer when no one would care about not having heat or hot water so much, but I digress) the rent guideline's board grants rent increases of 4 1/2 and 8 1/2%. I've topped out on raises at my job where the hell am I supposed to squeeze out another 8 1/2% on rent with the cost of gas and electricity skyrocketing. Don't get me started on the cost of food.

However, having said that, as rent-stabilized apartments are supposed to be one's main residence there is no good reason why someone would have 4 apartments. One I have no problem with. Four? That is a problem what with affordable housing for people who work for a living being as scarce as it is.

Regards

[WriteDown]

3. Rent should never be stabilised....

Basic econ. I've been to some very nice rent stabilised apts in Manhattan and I've been to quite a few tenaments, more of the latter. Rent stabilisation is an excuse for landlords to cut down on basic maintenance, pest prevention (you may have a chance to make new friends with the "water bugs" though), sanitation, etc. Or, its a great incentive to take in a tenant who can pay you addtl under the table each month which of course is tax free eliminating much needed revenue to the city.

Same phenomenon happens with ticket prices. You can set the price, but scalpers are still going to buy as many tickets as possible and sell Hannah Montana for 1000$ a pop.

[KurtNYC]

7. Is there nothing to stand between the market and humanity in Britain?

Are you saying that fixed income seniors should be priced out of the homes they have lived in for 30+ years+ because the landlord might (illegally) get lax on water bugs if they don't pay market rates? I find that to be an absurd and callous argument. I'm not sure how rent stabilization hurts anyone who isn't a landlord and even the landlord in NYC know what they are getting into when they make the decision to buy a building. Viewing the current rent rolls is part of the sale.

If it is different in the UK then I feel sorry for your seniors and for people who could treat (or condone treating) them so callously.

[WriteDown]

17. Ha...

My fault for writing stabilisation with an "s." I am not British. I had a professor in econ who was a Brit, maybe some of his grammar wore off. I am a native NYer. Lived in a bunch of states since then though. If you are on a small fixed income, I sure hope you wouldn't decide to live in NYC. That would be madness. That is why so many of the elderly move to the southern states. My father left Long Island and did that. It was a very wise decision. I will probably do the same.

You're argument is great in a perfect world, but doesn't work in places like NY. Bribes are commonplace with rent controlled apartments. Just look at how crane inspection is handled in the city.

[tpsbmam]

21. Problems with the argument here....

First, there are TONS of New Yorkers who live on a "small fixed income" in NY. It's home. Tons of New Yorkers live on small wage incomes, too -- who the hell do you think cleans the toilets in the Waldorf and cares for the rich elderly whose children ignore them by providing paid care? Okay, I'm generalizing but you get the point. I challenge your characterization of this as "madness." Yes, many move to Southern states, but most stay in NYC. Your father is one person and lived on Long Island, which is not NYC. You don't say what your father's resources, reasons, and other variables were. You don't say what his frame of reference was, etc etc. If you grew up on LI and never lived in the city (though you visited people), you don't really know what it's like to live in NYC. (Yes, I was born there and lived there until I was 29, at which point I too moved out. But I have TONS of friends representing a wide spectrum of income levels who still live there.)

When I lived in NYC as an adult, for the first 6 years that I was out of my parents home I worked in the non-profit arts. You know, theater and museums, all of those things that people come in from LI to see and then go home to the 'burbs. Do you have any idea how poorly the majority of the people who are responsible for making those dance & theater companies, museums, etc run are paid? Hell, I do! If I hadn't lived in a rent-stabilized apartment, I couldn't have afforded to keep my job.....and neither would a lot of people who make NYC the great city it is.

I lived in a very nice rent stabilized apartment. Yes, it was the top floor of a 5-story brownstone (no elevator) and I didn't have a door-person. But it was in a nice neighborhood, I had 2 stories, lovely wood floors, the usual brick wall in those apartments, 2 bedrooms, a small but nice kitchen and a rooftop garden. Like many young, I had a roommate the first 6 years I lived there and thereafter my income went up and I could afford it on my own. The building was kept up very well, as were all of the others on that block owned by the same landlord. The vast majority of my many friends in NYC at the time also lived in rent-stabilized apartments (were were all young and just starting out) -- the apartments were of varying quality, but all were pretty nice and the buildings were kept up well. Landlords were saying many of the same things then that they're saying now about the need to raise rents so the times aren't all THAT different.

Finally, you confusing rent stabilized and rent controlled apartments tells me you don't know what you're talking about. NO real New Yorker (talking the city here) would confuse the two. Rent controlled apartments are exceedingly rare in NYC these days. If you care about the difference, you can read here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York#Rent_control

[KurtNYC]

24. Are you saying that a landlord would take a bribe in order to rent

a $2500 for $320 (a typical rent controlled amount). How big would the "bribe" have to be for that to be a good deal for the landlord? I don't think I follow your argument.

[NashVegas]

11. New Yorkers Think It's Important, Or Did

That at least some people who don't work in $200k + per year jobs still be able to afford to live in their city.

And scalping sucks.

[Joe Bacon]

22. BULL!

Here in California, thousands of people are losing their homes and now forced to rent. Greedy Republic Party members pushed Prop 98 here which would have eliminated rent control. They repeatedly undermine rent control laws, evicting thousands of elderly and others stuck on fixed incomes. You want to throw them out on the streets and throw even more homeless on the streets?

When Howard Jarvis sold Prop 13 to Californians in 1978, he kept telling renters that their rents would go down by a third. Of course, when 13 passed, and high inflation hit, rent doubled. Jarvis' lies are what triggered rent control in California.

Thats why the overwhelming majority of Californians killed Prop 98.

Now, Maybe Phil Gramm agrees with you and your insensitive comments. In the real world, millions of California renters like me barely get by!

[digidigido]

4. You can bitch about an 8% raise, but the landlord is paying 300% more to keep

you ass warm in the winter. Heat is on in NYC apt.s at least 6 months a year

[Raineyb]

14. If he were keeping my ass warm I wouldn't be complaining

And neither would the thousands of people who have to call 311 because landlords don't keep the heat where it's supposed to be.

The heat is only mandated to kick on when the temperature hits a certain level. You think the landlord is keeping the heat on all the time? The heat law is as follows: If the temperature is below 55 degrees from 6am to 10pm the temperature indoors has to be at least 68 degrees. (Trust me it's not going higher.) If the temperature is below 40 degrees from 10pm to 6am then it has to be at least 55 degrees. So no, the heat which has to be available 8 months out of the year (It does get cold here you know) is not on all the time. Frankly, there are a lot of times when I as a 2nd shift worker come home to a cold ass apartment and considering that it's a pain in the ass to get repairs done, they don't paint at all and I come home to a cold apartment I don't see how the hell I'm getting a bargain. And I pay for my electricity so I'm paying more for that too thank you very much especially in the winter time when I use a space heater to make my room warm enough so I don't feel like I'm freezing my ass off. I pay my rent I'm not getting a free ride.

No one knows how much more the landlords are paying we only know how much they are alleging because they don't open their books.

And yeah, 8 1/2% is a huge increase when no one else's income is going up. Rent stabilized landlords have a guarantee increase in their income every year regardless of increase or decrease in costs. What other business gets that? These landlords know exactly what they're buying. They don't have to buy the apartment buildings. As they're not rushing to selling them I'm not wasting any time pitying them that's for damn sure.

Of course if your not interested in people who work for a living being able to live in the city they work in then I guess having a rent free for all is a good thing but it's going to be hard for all those poor rich people to find help.

Regards

[Taverner]

8. This is payback for impeachment

Expect similar tactics to be used against Dennis

[tidy_bowl]

16. Rangel is morally wrong..

...for not giving up the other three apartments to more deserving tenants. Legal? Perhaps, but terribly wrong on his part.

[JeanGrey]

19. The big deal is he has four of them and they are all not his

primary residence. That is letting three families out that could have them

[Overseas]

27. Should he pay regular prices like John Sidney McCain III does for his seven homes?

Should he be a regular guy like JSM III and pay only 273,000 a year for household help?

[undeterred]

5. He should rent 3 of them out to needy people.

[high density]

6. Discount or not, $4,000/mo for rent is pretty pricey for a guy worth $.5 to $1.2 million

Rangel, even at "bargain" rates, pays more in rent a year than I earn.

Of course this is also the same Rangel that leases a Cadillac on our dime ($778/mo plus free gas). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/nyregion/01cars.html

[NashVegas]

9. That's For Four Apartments

Does he really need that many?

[high density]

12. Good point, probably not

One $1,000 apartment plus $3,000/mo into savings seems like a better idea.

[tpsbmam]

23. He pays about the same percentage of income as most New Yorkers.....

Actually, he pays a smaller percentage of his income than the average New Yorker, who in 2005 paid 36.7% of his/her income in rent.

http://www.nycedc.com/NR/rdonlyres/9B4B2452-6440-4AE5-943E-CD61ECDF4E44/0/EconomicSnapshotJuly2006.pdf

Charlie Rangle pays between 29 & 30% of his income toward rent.

I moved out of NYC over 20 years ago. Even when I lived in NYC, it was expected that you'd devote at least 20% of your income to rent. It's gotten much, much worse since then.

[Raineyb]

30. He is paying a lower percentage but the percentage he's paying is what is considered appropriate

Rents are considered unaffordable when it takes over 30% of one's income.

http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=3576

Interesting article about rents; it also points out that part of the problem is due to low incomes.

Regards

[reclinerhead]

28. $4000 for 4!

I am paying $1410/mo. for my apartment on the central coast of CA. I probably make 1/10th of what Rangel does, salary wise. Ugh!!

[KurtNYC]

10. It is up to the landlord to challenge a tenant on Rent Stab

Rangel has one of the best approval ratings in congress and represents his district extremely well.

[Raineyb]

15. True

If Rangel's landlord isn't taking him to court then he's not obligated to give up the apartment.

Still it does look a bit unseemly.

Regards

[slackmaster]

13. Does he really need that much space?

Would the public interest be better served by having working-class families live in one or more of those units?

[npincus]

26. No, and Yes.

I had a brief encounter w/Rangel once... he was approaching an anti-war March (April '94)... I walked up to him and asked "would you like to carry a sign?" (it was a homemade sign that said "Send the Bush twins to Iraq") I was smiling, kidding him... he didn't look at me, didn't pause, just said "No" and kept walking. There was a black gentleman walking with him, furiously dusting off his collar and shoulders with a brush... a minion. I got such a bad vibe from him... a haughtiness... really depressing because 'on paper' I like(d) him a lot. I've met other pols in informal circumstances and I think you can really see a glimpse into who they really are by these encounters, however brief. So, I'm not surprised tto hear that Mr. Rangel feels he is entitled to (4) rent-controlled apartments, not a single one like other less-connected and powerful individuals.

BTW, Hillary Clinton was extremely nice, kind and warm when she went out of her way to thank me at an event in 1992... however brief, I was impressed by her.

[Stand and Fight]

18. Hmmm.... I wouldn't jump the gun without more information...

Maybe he is renting them in his name and other people actually live there? Well, that's not the case from the article, but who knows? Perhaps he has a really large family?

Without knowing his side of the story, I'm not going to judge the guy. But that's just me. ;)

[Stand and Fight]

20. What people here should be more concerned about is...

The fact that they are advertising his address! Hell, there's even a map on the second page of the article along with a detailed description as to what floor he lives on and what his apartment numbers are! Yet, people here are more concerned with their outrage. The NYT could have reported this story without so many dammed details, but I guess that doesn't matter to some here...

[npincus]

25. Do as I say, not as I do.

Mr Rangel could do well with (1) luxury apartment for his residence, and rent office space somewhere. Glaring hypocrisy should nt be tolerated in our party. (3) fanilies could benefit if Mr. Rangel does the right hting.

[rayofreason]

29. Rangel deserves 4 apartments...

...and the Cadillac leased on public funds, and the travel budget, and all the other privileges of power.

After all, it is not like he is an ordinary citizen, subject to ordinary rules that the rest of us live under. Of course, he might create the legislation that regulates the rest of us, but that is no reason why he, and the other exalted beings like him who are our betters, should chafe under those restrictions.

Move along now. Nothing here to see. Just some malcontents trying to stir up trouble.