This response is right-wing nonsense.

If you want to argue that any regulation of the rental-housing market is communist, you can. But at least be intellectually consistent and don’t lie. Spare us the horseshit about how decontrol would bring rents down. If it would, why have landlords spent decades pushing it, spent millions of dollars paying off politicians to weaken the rent laws? And rents are up dramatically in Boston–there are apartments where the rents have tripled over the last few years.

Removing rent stabilization would mean that landlords could kick people out whenever their lease expired. In buildings with deregulated apartments, we’ve already seen landlords charging current tenants more to renew their leases than they’re advertising the apartment for–apparently they’re betting that people would pay another couple hundred a month to avoid the hassle of moving.

“The truth” sound jealous of senior citizens getting a break after decades of re-building neighborhoods once on the brink of desolation and living in the city. Go back to surburban Jersey!

To persons who like to argue:
if I had the same deal as the old lady next to me I may have the same logic as you. however it would just be a untrue ratinalzation of my situation. while there is limited amount of space in new york the solution cannot be to give people cheap rents which is an incentive to never leave. I know of several persons who use their city stabilized pad as a vacation home. however they would not do this if they paid a fair rent. including persons doing this and people like the old lady next door (who happens to be insane which I supect is from living in the same apt for 50 years and who’s rent is paid for by nyc and I doubt she contributed much to society) all moved out because they were only asked to pay what is a fair price for their housing there would be a great many more apartments on the market for rent and sale. more apartments on the market can only mean lower or more stable rents for everyone not just people who got here first. I don’t think that you would be willing to debate this point as it is self evedent. however the old lady not contributing is debateable. your idea that everyone would pay more cannot be true if you follow my above logic. what your really saying to me in your reply is that you should be protesting for better mass transit. I am all for it. please be advised new york is not the only city with a scarcity of land others such as san francisco and boston who do not have stablization have lower rents then in ny. there are considerable barriers to new development in those cits too. while rents in desirable neighboorhoods there are still high its nothing like new york. this is not because ny is the most desirable city but because new york has an inefficent system. I can go all day with this. what about the undesirable tenant landlord relationships created with stablization. landords in these citys are happy to have people pay their share. they strive for good service because there is no reason not to. however when the tenant pays a rediculous rent of course the landlord won’t give good service or trys to evict. what do you expect. afordable housing is a pipe dream for me at least no thanks to persons such as the lady next door. anyways rents are reasonable in queens and bay ridge both are a subway away. what’s wong with gentrification any way? usually the outcome is less crime better tourism shopping and more jobs. true some people who had the best deal ever which got taken away from them suffer, but what did they do to earn that? why should they have the deal in the first place? you should look into some econmists views on this issue especially on shadow markets. if my next post is on a pc and not a cell phone ill show you the link which is why my spelling is lousy by the way. all my arguments are for the better of all persons not just the lucky few.

Sorry but I’m not going to be so kind to “truth’ as he is in fact a rambling idiot. Landlords are in business to make money; the majority of them could care less about the tenants that occupy their properties. The issue of rent control has nothing to do with communism or Marxism; it’s a simple matter of age and economics’. I would agree with truth with regard to why he’s paying so much more than the women in the apartment next door because theoretically that makes no sense and rent control has gone awry but if that elderly woman’s apartment were across town or across the street and the building in question was 50 years older than the one where market value is being paid then that makes sense. The purpose of rent control is to prevent owners of property of sub-value from charging the same rent as owners of newer property at market value. The way most rent control ordinances work is that any landlord can raise the rent to market value if they want but first they have to bring that 50 year old property up to the same standard as the one across the street that’s 5 or 10 years old. They would have to replace the heating system and put in new circuit breakers and replace the plumbing and put in new doors, etc. etc. etc. And the problem that truth just doesn’t seem to fathom is that these landlords’s want to raise the rent without maintaining the property or putting anything back into it to actually increase the value. They want a free pass to raise rent automatically regardless of whether they’re maintaining the property or not. Most landlords don’t want to paint the apartment much less do anything else. So to truth I would say that if your stupid enough to pay 3 times the rent of your next door neighbor and accept the premise that its because of rent control… I would seriously advise you to read your ordinance and confirm the facts before you go off spouting your nonsense. “Object of rent control ordinances is to prevent exorbitant and oppressive rental increases in milieu where tenants have been deprived of freedom of contract by absence of competitive housing market. Central Towers Co. v. Borough of Ft. Lee, 160 N.J. Super. 546 (Law Div. 1978).”

Look, leave rent stabilization for old tenants, it would not be right to change the rent for somebody on fixed-income, but remove them for anyone able-bodied below the age of 60. It is scientifically proven that the removal of rent regulations for the rest would bring rents down. There are 1 million such apts in the City, ONE MILLION! If you think that does not distort the overall rent prices, I would like to take whatever drugs you are on.

I know people that are for rent regulations, they are the kind to point out how people that don’t believe there is global warming don’t want to listen to the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence proving it. Just apply the same logic to this issue and don’t be hypocrites.

I’m just so tired of hippies thinking they are right because some professor 30 years ago made a lot of sense to them, you know?

Get real everybody, just think of the value that would be unlocked and transferred throughout the city if you just removed half of the rent stabilized stock, imagine…it’s easy if you try.