Hacker News Reader

Comment by bogomipz | Hacker News Reader

Huh? Rent Control apartments only represent 1.2% of the total rental stock in the New York City. That is as of 2014 and so its likely less now as that number only ticks down. How is that heavily subsidizing a retired population?

http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdf/2014-HVS-initia...

Also the idea of people paying peanuts for a rent controlled apartment is largely a myth. It is discussed in detail in this article:

http://citylimits.org/2015/03/09/nycs-endangered-species-a-r...

From the above article:

"Olive Freud, a retired schoolteacher, and her husband, Edgar, a retired engineer, also pay more than $2,000 a month in rent for their rent-controlled, two-bedroom unit on West 72nd Street"

View on HN

To qualify for "Rent Control" the apartments must be occupied since July 1, 1971 so that 1.2% is effectively 100% retired people.

Further 1,030,000 units are "Rent Stabilized". However, "Rent Stabilized" is really just another type of Rent Controlled with different rules.

PS: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York Non-regulated 2011: 39.1%.

> Further 1,030,000 units are "Rent Stabilized". However, "Rent Stabilized" is really just another type of Rent Controlled with different rules.

Rent Stabilization has very little to do with retired individuals, unsurprising given its broad scope. How is your comment relevant?

The rent controlled apartments called "Rent Controlled" are just one part of the problem. As these people needed to rent their apartment starting in 1971 those 27,000 apartments are rented by retired people. Which generally don't do daily commutes but do reduce density making other peoples commutes longer.

The much larger rent controlled group aka "Rent Stabilized" includes plenty of retired people, but also many working people who are discouraged from moving due to their below market price rent and the difficulty in finding new apartments. The working fraction of that much larger group creates congestion issues from these longer commutes, while the retired people reduce effective density.

TLDR; I am making more than one argument for why each type of rent control is part of the problem.

That 1.2% figure for the number of rent controlled apartments in 2014 equates to 27K apartments. I was responding to the OP's claim was that New York City was "heavily subsidizing" retired people.

Lets say that those 27K apartments have two occupants - the reality is probably less. so that is 54K people out of population of 8.1 million. The percentage of people that rent in NYC is ~ 70%(see link below) or 5.6 million? Would you consider that 54K a heavy subsidy burden on the majority of renters even if they were only paying peanuts which they are not see my second link above.

https://www.nakedapartments.com/guides/nyc/renting-in-new-yo...

The retired population in NYC is not 5.6 million. Further, these are older buildings which are not being replaced in part from rent control. So, the 'Gap' is wider than just 27,000 missing apartments.

In any case there still is a highly subsidized subset of the overall retired population that is part of the problem.

Nowhere did I say the retired are 5.6 million people. I used 54K people as the number of retired people at 2 people per each of the 27K rent controlled apartments. I also stated 5.6 to be the total number of all renters using 70% of 8.1 million total residents. Using 54K people again as an example mean that .96% of the populating is in rent controlled apartment. In reality that number is probably much lower because we are talking about an aging population.

I have provided actual numbers and data to demonstrate there is not a high subsidy. You have not provided any supporting evidence to the contrary.

This aside it is pretty disturbing that you keep insisting retired people are a "problem." They have as much right to live New York City as anyone else. They have paid into the system longer than anyone, they stuck it out through the tough times - the bad old days when New York City was a crime-ridden and financially insolvent city. They are not freeloaders by any measure.

I said, "heavily subsidizes a retired population"

Which says nothing about everyone, or every retired person, just these 27,000 apartments with vastly below market rents. On it's own this is not a big deal, but it really is a solid example of the problem with other forms of rent control.

The wider subsidy across ~1,030,000 apartments is a smaller subsidy, but also part of the same problem.

PS: Some of them could also afford to live in the same area without the subsidy. But, they also create jobs for people in the city further driving up demand for housing and thus rental prices.

They could be referring to rent stabilization, which is closer to 50%:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York#New_Y...

(not that I'm convinced either is a problem for this discussion)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com