I am thinking of it not from the actual building so much as from the legal costs when all the agencies and groups that fight landlords get going. You know that almost all the rent-controlled building tenants will be approached by these groups with the tale that they can keep their rent from being raised and they will go with the groups. The lawsuits will be filed, the lawyers will be lined up just waiting and hoping for these cases, the landlords will be stuck for days in the housing courts. Then you will have the city council trying to one-up the previous council and raising the bar for what has to be done. Even landlords who run their buildings right are going to be hurt big time. Add to this again the cost of utilities which because of the other changes they are going to demand on a national, state and city level with this green revolution and the profits will be gone. I agree that doing these things is a good idea in the long run. Forcing landlords, especially small landlords, to do this in the present economic situation will end up being counter-productive. How many small landlords who are trying to make a living and rent apartments they have scrimped and saved to get will be forced to walk away from them and then what is the city going to do about those places. Yes, I thought about it mostly from the long term standpoint of how this will affect both sides of the question. The landlords will have to raise the rents to pay for this and you have tenants who are out of work or working part time and can't afford it. They will fall behind, the landlord will fall behind and we will all lose.
Justice wrote: > Sorry that the timeline is set for 5 years. Clearly there are some > major improvements that could be made that are more expensive but > better for the environment for example water heat on solar but the 5 > year time line for recouping the expense would prohibit making this > kind of change unless the owner actually cares about the environment, > tends to take a long term view, and would like to . > > Most of the changes are pretty minor -- changing lightbulbs and > tightening up on windows and doors. > > As for owning an apartment building -- they're still going to make > money. They haven't told the owners that they will be unable to raise > rents in order to recoup the costs. And I'm pretty sure that's what > they will do. After all the place is more valuable. Even in rent- > controlled apartments, owners are permitted to raise the rent if > improvements are made and to recoup improvement costs. > > The only people who may want to get out of the business are those that > own really run-down buildings that will cost a lot of money to > retrofit, and even then the critical part of this bill is that > expenses must be recouped after 5 years or they don't have to be done. > > Of course people will continue to want to own apartment buildings -- > they are if run properly, profitable. > > If tenants pay their own electric bills (most don't in apartment > buildings) the owner will begin to see lowered bills in the first > month. > > Wonder if you thought this through or was it just a knee jerk reaction > to some rules that will help all of us when they are implemented? > > > On Apr 22, 8:04 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/science/earth/22green.html?_r=1&th&;... >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
