wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] hjs from 11211 July 11, 2008 - 11:37AM

  Rangel is a hypocrite of the highest order!

  
  
• [2] Benjamin from Manhattan July 11, 2008 - 11:40AM

  How can you say that means testing for rent stabilization won't have ANY benefits? Wouldn't it drive down the price of non-rent-regulated apartments by increasing their supply? Then people who aren't poor would have access to cheaper apartments although the Rangels of the world would hvae to pay slightly more. The key is to have sufficiently generous means testing. But to say there will not be "any" benefits, as Michael McKee just did, seems wrong on the basic economics.

  
  
• [3] Robert from Manhattan July 11, 2008 - 11:41AM

  The issue with Rangel is not that he has a rent stabilized apartment. It the question of why he has FOUR such apartments (especially the one used as an office), in a way that suggests that his clout is the reason that he has them. Any hypocrisy on his part in the way he might be protecting the landlord makes it worse.

  
  
• [4] Mike from Brooklyn July 11, 2008 - 11:42AM

  This is the sort of thing that did in rent control in the first place.

  
  
• [5] exlege from brooklyn July 11, 2008 - 11:42AM

  a rent regulated apartment must also be used as a primary residence. Rangel's political connections have surely protected him from landlord action in this matter.

  
  
• [6] hjs from 11211 July 11, 2008 - 11:42AM

  i did not post com #1

  
  
• [7] John Lobell from Manhattan July 11, 2008 - 11:43AM

  "If the landlord chooses not to make an issue of this" means the landlord is giving Rangle something of value. There is a name for this -- bribery.

  
  
• [8] Matt M from Bronx, NY July 11, 2008 - 11:43AM

  To quote my brother, really? Rent stabilization shouldn't be means tested? Rent stabilization penalizes those who would pay more for the same apartment. That's not fair. However, it might be forgiven to keep longtime residents of a neighborhood in place, or allow less well-off people to live close to their place of work. But, interferences with the market should be kept to a minimum. That's what's fairest.

  
  
• [9] Camille Mazurek from Park Slope July 11, 2008 - 11:44AM

  Hey,

  But there is an income cap! I thought it was $175,000.00. Do you mean to tell me that Rangel and the Governor are under that cap?

  
  
• [10] Matt from Manhattan July 11, 2008 - 11:45AM

  I own a rent stabilized apartment building. How does one justify 3/4 of my tenants paying less than $500 per month in 2008??

  Renters need protection from excessive rent and unscrupulous landlords, but that rent should reflect basic costs for the landlord to operate and maintain.

  
  
• [11] JJ from WaHI July 11, 2008 - 11:47AM

  - something seems fishy. just move to WaHI - lots of good places - cheap rent.

  
  
• [12] hjs from 11211 July 11, 2008 - 11:48AM

  what kind of place is this world when someone wants to take over MY name!

  
  
• [13] M. from Brooklyn July 11, 2008 - 11:48AM

  Do people know of anyone living in a rent-controlled apartment who obviously deserves it? Everyone I know of living in a rent-controlled apartment seems to come from the middle to upper class. They themselves might not make much money, but their parents are wealthy enough to keep supporting them.

  
  
• [14] World's Toughest Milkman from the_C_train July 11, 2008 - 11:48AM

  Totally agree with hjs. As far as I know any apartment building that has 6 or more units is subject to rent stabilization, subsidized housing is Mitchel Llama and projects for section 8 people, sounds like exploitation.

  
  
• [15] Benjamin from Manhattan July 11, 2008 - 11:49AM

  This is getting more and more ridiculous. "Everyone in New York should have rent regulation." So everybody should subsidize everybody? I don't understand the moral or political logic of that. The rich should subsidize the poor--people might disagree but at least that makes sense.

  On the Cambridge, MA and Boston, MA examples. I don't know details. But the guest at least owes us more. Maybe prices went up after rent regulation ended because demand went up as Cambirdge/Boston became more desirable places to live so that if rent regulation had continued, prices would've increased even more.

  
  
• [16] Theresa July 11, 2008 - 11:50AM

  Your guest is missing the point-- it's not whether the units in question are palaces. It's why Rangel has four of them.

  
  
• [17] Mike from Brooklyn July 11, 2008 - 11:50AM

  Wait a minute. If the aim is to preserve "affordable" housing, how is it okay to combine 4 apartments into one, taking 3 affordable units off the market?

  
  
• [18] Anon July 11, 2008 - 11:50AM

  the book author guest is clueless. Rangel has 4 apts in 1 bldg, 2 are connected. Separate and away from that he has TWO other apts in the one building.

  1 on the same floor, one on the 10th floor. Rangel is the only New Yorker allowed to enjoy this many separate Rent Stab apts. How lovely...while others are being evicted and harassed while having one, and has he ever spoken up for anyone? No.

  
  
• [19] ab July 11, 2008 - 11:54AM

  The New York Times once again proving what a right-wing partisan rag it is

  Without rent-control this city will decline even more than it already has and will cease to be the center of anything as younger people and lower income people will be completely pushed out. It's bad enough as it is with landlords just jacking up rent every single year (wanting a 15% rent increase????? That's not just greedy, it's plain EVIL) End of story. NYC is dying due to sky-rocketing rents! Stop the insanity!

  
  
• [20] hjs from 11211 July 11, 2008 - 11:57AM

  for the record i did not post comment 1 and i think i agree more with Michael Henry Adams

  if anyone cares other than the name thief :(

  
  
• [21] hjs from 11211 July 11, 2008 - 12:02PM

  i'm so upset BL Producer has not taken comment 1 off ! have a good weekend..... hissss

  
  
• [22] hjs from 11211 July 11, 2008 - 12:07PM

  anyway

  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, thanks