Rent and the Single Girl

 

 

Posted: March 07, 2013

 

First came Helen Gurley Brown’s “Sex and the Single Girl.”

Then there was Carrie Bradshaw in “Sex and the City.”

Now, we have Hannah Horvath on HBO’s “Girls.”

When will someone get around to what single women in New York really obsess about: a nice apartment in a decent neighborhood at an affordable price?

Today, more than 725,000 never-married women between the ages of 20 and 34 call Gotham home. Many have come here because they believe New York is the place to be. Especially for those just starting out, many quickly learn that life in the big city can mean sharing an East Bushwick apartment with three strangers because it’s the only place you can afford.

If New York’s high prices simply reflected the true market value, that would be one thing. After all, people have been finding roommates to split the rent for years. But the truth is that the young and unestablished are paying more than they should for their apartments, because the rental market and rental prices are being distorted by rent-control and rent-stabilization policies.

Rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments are a sweet deal for those who are in on it — mostly older and more established residents. So the wealthy retiree has every reason to cling to his rent-stabilized pad on Central Park South forever. Meanwhile, the young, the new arrivals and often the less-wealthy are out of luck.

Lena Dunham in “Girls”

These people pay in two ways: First, they have fewer apartments to choose from, because rent control and rent stabilization effectively take a million apartments off the market. According to the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, that’s nearly half the total rentals.

Second, the price of artificially lower rents in the regulated sector becomes artificially higher rents in the unregulated sector.

It’s not just single New York women, of course. It’s anyone looking for a place to live here. And so we have a familiar tale: laws promoted as helping average folk actually hurting them.

That’s worth keeping in mind as mayoral candidate after mayoral candidate prattles on about “affordable housing.” Almost always their answer is more of the same interference from government that has created this problem in the first place.

So as HBO gets ready for the Season 2 finale of “Girls,” we’re hoping someone might consider a series showing why, for so many women here, finding a decent, affordable apartment is more difficult than finding a faithful, self-supporting boyfriend.

 

Source: New York Post

Why Your Rent’s Too High

Posted: February 11, 2013

If there were one lesson our mayoral aspirants would do well to learn, it’s this: The reason basics in New York are so much more expensive than they should be — e.g., rent, real estate, education — is because our politicians are limiting supply.

The less supply the city has, the less affordable this city becomes.

That’s especially worth remembering when politicians prattle on about “affordability.” A perfect example: the opposition to a promising move by Mayor Bloomberg to open more city land for housing.

The plan is simple: Lease city land to developers to build luxury apartments, set aside 20 percent for families making less than $50,000, then use the revenues to pay for badly needed repairs for public housing.

Makes sense, right? In the land of common sense it does — but not in New York politics. Already, three likely candidates for mayor — Chris Quinn, Bill Thompson and John Liu — are attacking it. Posing as champions of the people, they claim the city should be building more affordable units, and fixing the ones New York has.

What’s notable is what they don’t say: how to pay for it. The city doesn’t have the cash, and good luck getting it from Washington.

Bloomberg understands this. He understands too that this city desperately needs more housing. Even adding luxury housing helps, because the more units on the market, the more prices go down — and folks have more chances to move up.

In an ideal world, Bloomberg would be selling the city’s land entirely and getting the government out of the housing business. That would include ending subsidies exploited by the rich (e.g., rent control) as well as giving the poor more opportunities to afford private apartments, rather than packing them off to public housing.

Still, the mayor deserves kudos for a plan that represents a huge step forward over the status quo. As for the hapless mayoral wannabes attacking it, a big Bronx cheer — and a free copy of the collected works of Milton Friedman.

 

Source: New York Post