15% dismissal is absurdly high? That seems like hyperbole honestly.

the price cap I been referring is the cap on increases. it exist as we both agree just like in rent stabilized units but now making it apply for market units

>If a landlord is merely not renewing a lease in order to kick the current tenant out (without good cause), then yes the tenant should 100% have the right to remain in their home.

the good cause is the end of the term length on the agreed contract...and 100% right to remain at someone property who didn't agree to the extended length possibly that you be there forever? you don't own it. some else does that you agreed to live and vacate by end of the contract

>"perpetual lease" does not respect the wording of the bill itself.

and yet even you agree in practice it is and the point of the bill

Thank you for answering my questions with additional information. I was downvoted just for asking for clarity, because....reddit.

A price cap and soft caps on increases are not the same thing at all.

Re "perpetual leases": it's worth noting that Landlords could still deny a lease renewal if they wanted to do something other than host a tenant at the same rate, like occupy a unit themselves or have a family member move in. The term "perpetual lease" does not respect the wording of the bill itself.

Otherwise, all that the current situation permits is for landlords to not renew a lease and increase the rent significantly: the effect of this Good Cause requirement necessitates that the term be extendable; the cap and extend-ability go hand-in-hand; you can't have one without the other.

If a landlord is merely not renewing a lease in order to kick the current tenant out (without good cause), then yes the tenant should 100% have the right to remain in their home.

All that the lease renewal requiring the landlord's consent does is permit them to hold the prospect of renewal over the tenant's heads, which forces tenants to bend over backwards to not bother the landlord. I've lived in terrible living conditions and not reported a critical and very real safety issue because the landlord threatened to not permit me to renew the lease if I kept insisting that they fixed it. That prospect is serious for renters, especially those who are least capable of moving with ease (disabled folks, undocumented folks, poor folks, etc.).

Internet service provision is very different, for a host of reasons, and implying otherwise is pretty disingenuous.

Look, on a more conceptual level: more people are tenants than they are landlords, so in a democratic society in which the government represents the popular will, laws should side with tenants when their rights are in direct opposition to the wishes of landlords.

and yet its fitting we sign a 1 yr contract and we are obligated to offer and continue beyond that length? How contract works again?

[deleted]

>works both ways.

That is not how businesses or contracts work...

They do it because people get pissed when you completely close a road for a week straight. Also tends to raise prices if you close small sections at a time. People prefer if you close a large area for a short period (like weekday nights for a month).

Ironic that the cops call it a tragedy when every other DWI in the news seems to be a police officer

The govt will just outsource everything and will wind up paying more than if they had offered competitive wages

That happens every now and again. Many years ago Fulton Street from Bed-Stuy to downtown Brooklyn was being torn up and you can see the cobblestone and old street car rails. I always wondered how things could be if we still had street cars.

same for you ignoring your original contract. You now want the owner to be obligated to continue at cap priced increase indefinitely if you wish to despite the original term length discussed & agreeed

If you want a place to live forever, buy a place.

Don’t bother with this dude, he’s all over this sub arguing in bad faith. He’s either a seedy landlord or loves defending them.

Some predatory deep-pocketed landlords love this bill, because it will allow them to gobble up more properties from smaller landlords.

> receive one if they’re in good standing per the lease agreement.

with price caps on the increase....missing that much again? essentially making market unit rent regulated with a perpetual lease

> You were in another thread saying this will only increase housing discrimination, lmfao.

oh it will def

The hell are you talking about man? Tenant isn’t obligated to sign on a lease renewal, they’re just entitled to receive one if they’re in good standing per the lease agreement.

You and a couple others in this sub have been spreading misinformation about Good Cause. Either you’re a shady ass landlord or you love covering for them. You were in another thread saying this will only increase housing discrimination, lmfao. Lack of regulation has never helped vulnerable people, but it’s clear which side you’re on.

works both ways. if subject finds a better deal elsewhere but cant switch due to good standing. end of the day, there is a contract length and it was met. Parties are free to continue not obligated

The MTA doesn’t have anything to do with Moynihan though.

You can also see how much higher the current road is versus the pre-asphalt one.

>next time you sign up for internet service for a yr and want to switch at end of contract to some other provider but cant because provider been good standing with you and continues contract indefinitely

This metaphor is weird because you're reversing the subjects here. The landlord is the ISP. It's more like a bill preventing an ISP from terminating or throttling service to a customer who is in good standing.

I was going to say, is there anything historical there to see?

The ramble tour link is dead. I looked on the rest of the website and only found a tour mentioned in May. Do you have another link to it?

Amtrak's sitting area is distant from where they ask you to line up for the trains, which starts more than an hour before departure (like airport gate lice). It means you are forced to stand or forced to take really unhappy seat choices on the trains.

Airport gates have seating areas!

The problem is, it's now policy to not have benches in transportation facilities. They do not want to have to move homeless people off of them, because there are now tens of thousands of documented homeless people in the city every night & the shelters are terribly unsafe and overcrowded. So they've removed or altered benches in the subways, they close parks, they've taken benches off the sidewalks, and now they build new train stations (notably Moynihan and WTC) that have nowhere to sit at all, except for the tiny disconnected far-from-platforms Amtrak waiting area you mentioned.

People are mentioning it because sometimes they WOULD like to sit, and commuters are sometimes waiting 1-2 hours for their next train when it's off-peak service. (e.g. the weekend trains on Metro North past Croton and White Plains are hourly, and some destinations have even less frequent service) And these people tend to have luggage and don't want to arrive early and stand around with it. This isn't a bizarre hypothetical.

Here is Pinehurst ave in 1947, OP.