| Author |
Message |
    
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 4832
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 5:41 pm: | 
|
I just read in this week's N-R that the TC has decided to postpone their vote on whether to continue rent control for another two years until they have the oportunity to consider the ramifications of the present rent control ordinance. I hope the TC will consider eliminating rent control all together for future renters and consider a reasonable phase out proposal for current renters who are covered by rent control in Maplewood. |
joso
Citizen
Username: Joso
Post Number: 277
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
What in god's name does MSO need Rent Control for? |
aquaman
Citizen
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 238
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Votes? Buzz words?
Look who's for reform and look who is for bad business as usual.
|
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 682
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 7:37 pm: |
|
Joan?????
The TC over the past 15 years has studied this repetitively. They know when it started, why it started and how Vic and Jerry's TC's sidesteped the issue. They know why it isn't effective ect, ect. This needs to voted on now and discontinued.
Joso, it started in the late 70's when inflation was rampart. A number of communities did the same to protect lower income individuals. A major program was put in place in Maplewood, never enforced. Most American communities discontinued their programs in the 80's as the economy rebounded.
Maplewood should have done the same. They didn't and under the DEMS it will never happen. Ironically,Fred P is well aware of the pros and cons and should lead the debate. Maplewoodians should relish this discussion.
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 4834
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Joso:
Maplewood does not need rent control. That's my whole point and from what s/he wrote above, I would conclude that Reflective agrees with me.
To confuse you even further, Maplewood's rent control law really isn't rent control at all because all rents return to market rate whenever a covered unit is vacated. It is more of a rent stagnation law because it places sharp restrictions on rent increase for the life of a given tenancy.
I have heard arguments which state that at least some of the problem we have with high commercial rents in the Village and elsewhere in town comes from the fact that since commercial rents are not controlled, landlords of mixed use buildings have to rely on increasing commercial rents to obtain the revenue needed to keep their building(s) in proper repair. Without rent control, such costs could be divided more equitably among all tenants in the building and commercial rents (at least in theory) could be reduced. This in turn could help reduce the "nail salon" proliferation we are seeing on both Maplewood Avenue and SA.
Others have argued that Maplewood's unusual brand of rent control helps to keep property values down in the sections of town where these rental properties are located and contribute to the decay of housing stock in these buildings.
The one thing rent control in Maplewood does not do is provide affordable housing for new tenants. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 683
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Joan:
You conclude correctly that I agree with you.
Moreover, you are accurate on all your points in each paragraph.
Cheers |
Sonk
Citizen
Username: Sonk
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
I dont know what part of Maplewood you all live in but i know for fact that maplewood does need rent control. Take a step out of your own immediate area and look around the areas off of springfield ave and close to Irvington. I believe that you would all see people who could use it. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 300
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Rent control makes things worse, not better.
If affordable rents are indeed the objective, then pay for a direct subsidy rather than effectively steal it from the property owners. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 4839
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Sonk:
Rent control in Maplewood does not equal low income or even affordable housing. There are no controls on how much a landlord can ask for when renting an apartment to a new tenant. The rent only becomes controlled once the initial lease is signed. When that tenant vacates the apartment, the landlord is once again entitled to rent the apartment for as much as s/he can get. As soon as the new lease (with a different tenant) is signed, rent control kicks in again until the new tenant leaves.
It is unlikely that persons needing low income or affordable housing would be able to afford the initial rent being charged for these apartments. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1629
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
It was my understanding from a previous thread on this subject and discussions during election campaigns that a majority of the present members of the TC were on the record as being in favor of repealing the Rent Control Ordinance or allowing it to expire. Did some of them change their minds? |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 687
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Anon
Please post the references. Politicians, even OURS, have very short memories. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Reflective: I'm not good at locating old threads, etc., but I have a pretty good memeory.
Perhaps Dave or Sbenois can pull up some old posts. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 689
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
Anon
I have the same problem,
Thanks  |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 4847
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
More important than any previous position our TC members may have taken based on "State of the Town" when the vote on rent control came up in previous years, is the position they intend to take now. A little judicious lobbying of your favorite TC member(s) couldn't hurt at this time. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Joan: I'm not sure what you mean. I have a recollection that in 2002 or 2003 or both all candidates were asked their position. Perhaps Dave or Jamie can retrieve the on-line debates from those years. Because of the positions taken by the sucessful candidates I assumed, which is always dangerous, that rent control was a dead issue.
Frankly, it has always been my position that it was a rather trivial issue. I believe there are very few units in Town that are subject to the ordinance, and that most landlords and tenants were unaware of the ordinance and went about their business as if there were no rent control until one or two people decided to make it a public issue and went to the News-Record.
I'll bet that not one poster on MOL (other than the members of the TC)can name the members of the Rent Control Board. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Would any TC member or member of the Rent Control Board who is watching please name the members and tell us when the Board meets. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 4849
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Anon:
When the Nolan report came out, I was convinced that rent control had become a dead issue in Maplewood but rent control was still continued for another two years.
It is extremely difficult to get this law erased from the books, when you have people who have been living in rent controlled apartments for many years, lobbying to keep rent control because they will not be willing or able to pay fair market rents on their apartments if rent control is eliminated.
My point is that since the Nolan report came out, we have seen changes in the types of businesses which are locating in the Village, on Springfield Avenue and elsewhere; a TC which is committed to examining the possibility of increasing mixed use buildings (especially along SA) of precisely the type which would come under rent control were it to remain in existence; and the initiation of redevelopment zones in some of those areas where rent controlled units presently exist.
Any decision made this year regarding the (dis)continuation of rent control needs to be based at least in part on factors which may not have existed during prior election periods. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5298
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
If you're right, Joan, then wouldn't it be possible to write a law that continues rent control for tenants who are renting at the time of passage of the law but eliminates it henceforth?
I like the idea of a government subsidy replacing rent control, but where would that money come from? Right now, it comes from the landlords. When they give up that subsidy, it doesn't suddenly make the government richer. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 4861
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Tom:
Phasing out rent control by decontrolling rental units as they become vacant is cetainly an option.
There are Federal subsidy programs available (see Attic for thread on Section 8 housing) problem would be availability of such funding for persons not already covered by the program. Also, there are income restrictions which might be too low, given the relatively high cost of living in our community. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page