| Author |
Message |
    
shestheone
Citizen
Username: Shestheone
Post Number: 127
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 11:02 pm: |     |
I just watched the town council host a discussion on rent control and wondered what exactly is the relationship between the LVP building and a council member. Is rent control an issue that will have direct impact on a council member?
If anyone can clarify the relationship, I would appreciate it. I've often wondered about the building...
Also, it seemed to be spruced up just before an election. Perhaps this was just a coincidence.
Thanks. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 204
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 11:37 pm: | |
It's common knowledge that the LVP building is owned by the brother of the mayor. That building consists only of professional offices.
Maplewood's rent control ordinance applies only to certain residential properties. Hence, there is no impact whatsoever of rent control on this building.
|
shestheone
Citizen
Username: Shestheone
Post Number: 128
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 7:09 am: | |
Thanks, Bottomline. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 645
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 4:40 pm: | |
rent control was created during WWII to help women left home alone to pay their rent. it is no longer necessary nor relevant and is in direct opposition to the free market principles this country was based upon. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5433
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 8:22 am: | |
Remember gas lines at the service stations? Rent control in Maplewood was created at about that time in response to quickly escallating fuel costs. The town wanted to protect tenants from landlords passing on this added fuel cost and making it a permanent part of the rent, even after fuel supplies went back to normal levels.
Despite the upward trend we are seeing in fuel prices at the moment, rent control in Maplewood is no longer needed for this purpose.
What many people don't realise is that Maplewood does not have rent control in the traditional sense. Rents return to fair market value whenever a tenant vacates an apartment covered under the ordinance. The apartment then becomes rent controled for the period of time the tenant remains in the apartment.
Rather than create moderate income housing, which is a driving force behind rent control in most other places, the Maplewood ordinance as written encourages landlords to charge as much as they can get for an apartment so as to offset later "loses" when the rent becomes fixed. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 646
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:34 pm: | |
oh.......never mind. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 8277
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 5:05 am: | |
Any proposal about eliminating rent control I have seen here is for "vacancy decontrol". In other words existing tenants would be protected until they decided to move or passed on.
Traditionally many of the buildings along Maplewood Avenue and Springfield Avenue were owened by the people who ran the businesses on the first floor. Sub market rents on the apartments on the upper floors make it harder for these small businesses to survive.
At least in theroy, Cornercopia might still be on Maplewood Avenue instead of another nail joint if the owners were getting a decent return from the apartments on the upper floors, although I suspect the brothers were at a point in their lives where they wanted to move on. However, hopefully, you will get the idea. |
L'Angelo Misterioso
Citizen
Username: Misterioso
Post Number: 168
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 5:40 am: | |
Bob, I doubt that rent control had anything to do with the demise of Cornercopia. Many (if not all) of the units in that building are commercial, not residential. Therapists offices and such. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 8281
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 8:46 am: | |
I had always been under the impression the second floor had some commercial and the floor(s) above were residential. However, I don't recall when or how I got that information so you may be correct.
However, the basic idea stands. Residential rents are part of the building owners return on his investment, especially a small business person who owns a building he partially occupies. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page