Charlie Rangel Rents 4 Apartments at Bargain Rates

[red states rule]

The samwe lib who wants to raise your taxes until your eyeballs pop to help the poor - is living high on the hog at the expense of the poor.

And at he same time, ignores the law over the use of the apartments


For Rangel, Four Rent-Stabilized Apartments

While aggressive evictions are reducing the number of rent-stabilized apartments in New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel is enjoying four of them, including three adjacent units on the 16th floor overlooking Upper Manhattan in a building owned by one of New York’s premier real estate developers.

Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, uses his fourth apartment, six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence.

Mr. Rangel, who has a net worth of $566,000 to $1.2 million, according to Congressional disclosure records, paid a total rent of $3,894 monthly in 2007 for the four apartments at Lenox Terrace, a 1,700-unit luxury development of six towers, with doormen, that is described in real estate publications as Harlem’s most prestigious address.

The current market-rate rent for similar apartments in Mr. Rangel’s building would total $7,465 to $8,125 a month, according to the Web site of the owner, the Olnick Organization.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11rangel.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

[5stringJeff]

That's because it's illegal to charge the "market rate" in NYC, because of rent control.

[red states rule]

That's because it's illegal to charge the "market rate" in NYC, because of rent control.

You overlooked how he is violating the law

And I know the ultra liberal needs 4 apartments as folks are hard pressed to find a place to live in the area

[emmett]

The samwe lib who wants to raise your taxes until your eyeballs pop to help the poor - is living high on the hog at the expense of the poor.

And at he same time, ignores the law over the use of the apartments


For Rangel, Four Rent-Stabilized Apartments

While aggressive evictions are reducing the number of rent-stabilized apartments in New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel is enjoying four of them, including three adjacent units on the 16th floor overlooking Upper Manhattan in a building owned by one of New York’s premier real estate developers.

Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, uses his fourth apartment, six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence.

Mr. Rangel, who has a net worth of $566,000 to $1.2 million, according to Congressional disclosure records, paid a total rent of $3,894 monthly in 2007 for the four apartments at Lenox Terrace, a 1,700-unit luxury development of six towers, with doormen, that is described in real estate publications as Harlem’s most prestigious address.

The current market-rate rent for similar apartments in Mr. Rangel’s building would total $7,465 to $8,125 a month, according to the Web site of the owner, the Olnick Organization.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11rangel.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

That's unfair RSR. Charlie only uses half of that space. The other half is where Barney Frank takes his young male lovers. He helps pay the rent so your statement was insensative, only partially accurate and intentionally hurtful.

While Charlie may be misusing his part of the space, Mr. Frank is operating right along the lines of what about half of New York does with their living quarters.

[red states rule]

That's unfair RSR. Charlie only uses half of that space. The other half is where Barney Frank takes his young male lovers. He helps pay the rent so your statement was insensative, only partially accurate and intentionally hurtful.

While Charlie may be misusing his part of the space, Mr. Frank is operating right along the lines of what about half of New York does with their living quarters.

It is unfair a black lib is exposed for what he is. Seems using one of the aparmtments for an office (which is againt the law) does not bother the leaders of the NY government

Why the hell does he need 4 apartments anyway? With so many people needing a place to live in NY, Charlie does not seem to care much about them

[5stringJeff]

You overlooked how he is violating the law

You're right, I did miss that. In the WSJ today, it said he is using one apartment for his campaign, and "lives" in the other three. I still don't see how that's in line with the law, but that's his excuse.

My point is that the law ought to be repealed, and landlords should be able to rent out apartments to whomever they want, at whatever price they want, whether for residence or as a campaign HQ.

[red states rule]

You're right, I did miss that. In the WSJ today, it said he is using one apartment for his campaign, and "lives" in the other three. I still don't see how that's in line with the law, but that's his excuse.

My point is that the law ought to be repealed, and landlords should be able to rent out apartments to whomever they want, at whatever price they want, whether for residence or as a campaign HQ.

I agree totally with you. Let the market determine the rents - and let Charlie pay fair market prices

[Yurt]

You're right, I did miss that. In the WSJ today, it said he is using one apartment for his campaign, and "lives" in the other three. I still don't see how that's in line with the law, but that's his excuse.

My point is that the law ought to be repealed, and landlords should be able to rent out apartments to whomever they want, at whatever price they want, whether for residence or as a campaign HQ.

you know, that is actually a really good point. i have personal reasons to be in favor of government type housing subs, like section 8, so i always shy away from this topic. with that said, when i read your post i couldn't help but wonder:

town "priceville" is very expensive, desirable and many want to live there for various reasons. it is so expensive, that many people cannot afford to pay rent at the current market level, despite being able to do so a mere decade ago. so the government creates rent control and mandates that..say 20% of the town must provide living to those who cannot afford the market rate.

so now, instead of 20% of the town being vacant, the town is full, housing hard to come by and competition fierce as openings in the rental market are slim. seems to me that the government created a false market and actually kept the price of rents higher.

[red states rule]

you know, that is actually a really good point. i have personal reasons to be in favor of government type housing subs, like section 8, so i always shy away from this topic. with that said, when i read your post i couldn't help but wonder:

town "price" is very expensive, desirable and many want to live there for various reasons. it is so expensive, that many people cannot afford to pay rent at the current market level, despite being able to do so a mere decade ago. so the government creates rent control and mandates that..say 20% of the town must provide living to those who cannot afford the market rate.

so now, instead of 20% of the town being vacant, the town is full, housing hard to come by and competition fierce as openings in the rental market are slim. seems to me that the government created a false market and actually kept the price of rents higher.

Well, if the units stay empty, the price will drop so the landlords can rent out the units

There is no reason for the government to stick its nose in the situation.

[Yurt]

Well, if the units stay empty, the price will drop so the landlords can rent out the units

There is no reason for the government to stick its nose in the situation.

true, i admit to not having considered that until i read jeff's post. as i said, i have personal reasons why i support section 8.

i have a question then:

does section 8 operate like rent control, in that, would section 8 operate to create the situation in priceville

[red states rule]

true, i admit to not having considered that until i read jeff's post. as i said, i have personal reasons why i support section 8.

i have a question then:

does section 8 operate like rent control, in that, would section 8 operate to create the situation in priceville

To me it is rent control. My tax dollars are used so the "poor" can get an apartment

This program has been around since the Depression, and grown, grown, and grown

[Yurt]

To me it is rent control. My tax dollars are used so the "poor" can get an apartment

This program has been around since the Depression, and grown, grown, and grown

fair enough. so you're saying, that even though secion 8 is not a direct rent control, it nevertheless operates as an indirect rent control?

[red states rule]

fair enough. so you're saying, that even though secion 8 is not a direct rent control, it nevertheless operates as an indirect rent control?

The way I understand Section 8 - the poor guy takes an apartment that goes for $500/month. Taxpayers kick in $300/month, and the renter pays the remaining $200/month

So while it is not rent control, taxpayer money is used

[Yurt]

The way I understand Section 8 - the poor guy takes an apartment that goes for $500/month. Taxpayers kick in $300/month, and the renter pays the remaining $200/month

So while it is not rent control, taxpayer money is used

yeah, that is exactly what is. ok.... i guess i have always considered that at least the LL got his $$ or market value. the market is not directly affected as the LL gets his market share and if the market goes down, the tax payers give less to the LL.

i can see now though how S8 can operate as an indirect false market - the person on S8 would not occupy that residence, but for, S8. hmmmmmm

i guess i am not a true and through conservative, because i do see the need for S8 housing in "some" circumstances.

[red states rule]

yeah, that is exactly what is. ok.... i guess i have always considered that at least the LL got his $$ or market value. the market is not directly affected as the LL gets his market share and if the market goes down, the tax payers give less to the LL.

i can see now though how S8 can operate as an indirect false market - the person on S8 would not occupy that residence, but for, S8. hmmmmmm

i guess i am not a true and through conservative, because i do see the need for S8 housing in "some" circumstances.

Very few in my book. When the government gives stuff away, the demand for the freebies will always increase

[Yurt]

Very few in my book. When the government gives stuff away, the demand for the freebies will always increase

what do you mean exactly

[red states rule]

what do you mean exactly

I would not have a problem with Section 8 to a family that lost their home in a fire or natural disaster

It would be on a temp basis, with a target date for them to have their own home

Some people spend most of their lives in Section 8. When the taxpayer is paying for most of it, there is no incentive for them to leave

[Yurt]

I would not have a problem with Section 8 to a family that lost their home in a fire or natural disaster

It would be on a temp basis, with a target date for them to have their own home

Some people spend most of their lives in Section 8. When the taxpayer is paying for most of it, there is no incentive for them to leave

what about a person who is disabled. not liberal disabled, but truly disabled.

say this person can, for the most part, operate on their own, but needs state assistance, such as a worker who comes by once a week and section 8 that helps this person not live in the slums, but lower income housing (lower class, but not the slums) that this person could not afford, but for section 8 as SSI only gives (or taxes depends on your POV) so much.

[red states rule]

what about a person who is disabled. not liberal disabled, but truly disabled.

say this person can, for the most part, operate on their own, but needs state assistance, such as a worker who comes by once a week and section 8 that helps this person not live in the slums, but lower income housing that this person could not afford, but for section 8 as SSI only gives (or taxes depends on your POV) so much.

Again, no problem. If people has a legit reason why they can't work, and can't take care of their nasic needs - give them the help they need

[Yurt]

Again, no problem. If people has a legit reason why they can't work, and can't take care of their nasic needs - give them the help they need

ok, but isn't that still the government creating a false market.... in that, but for section 8, that person would not be living in that place. it pains me to make this argument, but i have to be honest, the burden is spread to the rest of you vis a vis taxes...as you pointed out above.

this is why i guess i am not a true and through conservative....for at times i do believe that society is better off helping shoulder the "burden" so that one may live better....and follow that money trail, that person can be a consumer. i know my logic in this is most likely flawed, however, it is my thinking and i stand by it. at least for now, unless someone presents a good reason otherwise.

[red states rule]

ok, but isn't that still the government creating a false market.... in that, but for section 8, that person would not be living in that place. it pains me to make this argument, but i have to be honest, the burden is spread to the rest of you vis a vis taxes...as you pointed out above.

this is why i guess i am not a true and through conservative....for at times i do believe that society is better off helping shoulder the "burden" so that one may live better....and follow that money trail, that person can be a consumer. i know my logic in this is most likely flawed, however, it is my thinking and i stand by it. at least for now, unless someone presents a good reason otherwise.

Libs have expanded the Section 8 program so much, people spend their lives in those projects. Again, if the person can work, they can only spend so much time there

Disabled folks is a different story

There is nothing wrong with helping people who need the help - not the folks who want it to avoid their responsibilities

[Yurt]

Libs have expanded the Section 8 program so much, people spend their lives in those projects. Again, if the person can work, they can only spend so much time there

Disabled folks is a different story

There is nothing wrong with helping people who need the help - not the folks who want it to avoid their responsibilities

"projects".... we don't have "projects" on the west coast, per se.

what if the disabled person can work, a low end job, but they can work nonetheless. their skills qualify only for theater clean up, etc... IOW, they may work in the store but never the register. when wages go up, SSI goes down. sometimes, SSI goes down so much, given the bureaucratic method of efficiency, that rent/food cannot be paid.

so the worker, works less, in order that SSI pays enough to get by.

in the end, we are talking about a 'false market'. as i said, it pains me to make this argument, however, honesty dictates that i must. IMO, i have no problem with government spreading out that person's """care""". then again, if government did not loan/give away:

loans for schoool
loans for houses
food
clothes

would the market be what it is today?

[red states rule]

"projects".... we don't have "projects" on the west coast, per se.

what if the disabled person can work, a low end job, but they can work nonetheless. their skills qualify only for theater clean up, etc... IOW, they may work in the store but never the register. when wages go up, SSI goes down. sometimes, SSI goes down so much, given the bureaucratic method of efficiency, that rent/food cannot be paid.

so the worker, works less, in order that SSI pays enough to get by.

in the end, we are talking about a 'false market'. as i said, it pains me to make this argument, however, honesty dictates that i must. IMO, i have no problem with government spreading out that person's """care""". then again, if government did not loan/give away:

loans for schoool
loans for houses
food
clothes

would the market be what it is today?

Government spending is about 1/3 of the GDP - that should tell you alot Yurt

[Yurt]

Government spending is about 1/3 of the GDP - that should tell you alot Yurt

actually no, what does that tell me? that government spending is an important part of our market or the market?

[red states rule]

actually no, what does that tell me? that government spending is an important part of our market or the market?

The government is spending way to much money. If you want to cut the Federal budget there are alot of places you can start

Then you cut taxes to keep the extra money out of DC

The government is a bloated pig that needs to be slaughtered

[Yurt]

The government is spending way to much money. If you want to cut the Federal budget there are alot of places you can start

Then you cut taxes to keep the extra money out of DC

The government is a bloated pig that needs to be slaughtered

ok, but i asked:

that government spending is an important part of our market or the market?

[red states rule]

ok, but i asked:

that government spending is an important part of our market or the market?

Yes it is. I would rather have their impact reduced and have the private sector take up the slack

We are an overtaxed people as it is - and the messiah will increase the burden

[Yurt]

Yes it is. I would rather have their impact reduced and have the private sector take up the slack

We are an overtaxed people as it is - and the messiah will increase the burden

but you agree that some people need the help

[red states rule]

but you agree that some people need the help

Of course

I wish people would plan more. In my case, I am a big believer in insurance. If not for my LTD policy I have thru work, I would be in a hell of a mess

I decided to spend th $8 month for the protection

[Yurt]

Of course

I wish people would plan more. In my case, I am a big believer in insurance. If not for my LTD policy I have thru work, I would be in a hell of a mess

I decided to spend th $8 month for the protection

i thought we were talking about those who cannot afford insurance. those who are literally handicap, "retarded" if you will.

[red states rule]

i thought we were talking about those who cannot afford insurance. those who are literally handicap, "retarded" if you will.

If folks can't afford $8/month it is there problem

But I get your point. I do not have an issue with helping folks with a legit need.

[Yurt]

If folks can't afford $8/month it is there problem

But I get your point. I do not have an issue with helping folks with a legit need.

fair enough, and i agree. my problem is this:

does that help create a false market?

as i said above, i did not consider it until Jeff's post.

[red states rule]

fair enough, and i agree. my problem is this:

does that help create a false market?

as i said above, i did not consider it until Jeff's post.

I can see how it creats a false market. Big government spending will inflate prices

[Yurt]

I can see how it creats a false market. Big government spending will inflate prices

so the handicap should have no help?

[emmett]

It is unfair a black lib is exposed for what he is. Seems using one of the aparmtments for an office (which is againt the law) does not bother the leaders of the NY government

Why the hell does he need 4 apartments anyway? With so many people needing a place to live in NY, Charlie does not seem to care much about them

Ah.................RSR.......................it was a joke! Man, you are taking this stuff too seriously. I would suggest you go 48 hrs without logging in, take your wife out to dinner and movie and call me in the morning!

[5stringJeff]

Yurt, rent control imposes a false ceiling on prices, which always - ALWAYS - leads to a shortage of the good in question, because it artifically increases demand and artificially lowers supply.

In the case of NYC, and specifically Mr. Rangel's apartments, there is a secondary market (the "black market," if we're still allowed to use that term) that leads to the market clearing price. In the secondary market, Rangel's apartments are worth $7,000 to $8,000 each, per month. One of the reasons this story is such a big deal is that Rangel is paying the "controlled" amount of about $950/month. It's a bargain for him, and I don't blame him at all for "working the system." My point is that the system is broken, and rent control should be put out to pasture.

I don't know enough about "Section 8" to post on it. Sorry.