James Hirschfeld

@jaymart222 @birenday So in your mind, the landlord was offering discounts on the apartments until he had to replace the gate, and then he passed on that cost to the tenants? that's ridiculous. landlords charge the maximum possible rent which is set by the market.

Housing is above those ground floor businesses and when costs increase on part of the building they effect the whole building. More importantly why if a gate works perfectly fine should it be replaced? Further laws passed 17 years ago usually have less compliance over time when a city does nothing to remind operators of compliance deadlines.

This law which requires gates to be 70% more see thru was passed when most council members weren’t old enough to drink and is one of hundreds of unfunded housing mandates that go into effect years after the council members who passed them have left office. These local laws are a huge reason why housing in the city is so expensive. Thanks to @CBSNewYork for highlighting.

@jaymart222 You’re taking a real problem—fraudulent deed theft—and stretching the term to cover policies you don’t like. That’s not the same thing.

Fraudulent deed theft is 100% a real problem, particularly for Black and Latino property owners in Brooklyn. If you deny that you don’t know whats going on. You know what else is a real problem that leads to deed theft today for Black and Latino property owners? Deed theft by non-payment of rent arrears aided by government and deed theft by regulatory insolvency through rent control. They all require the attention of lawmakers.

@LionBlogosphere You're talking about concentration camps

Why can't homeless people be removed to some remote out-of-the way colony upstate? Why do they have to live in expensive Manhattan real estate? It's not like they are working in the Manhattan office buildings that they need to be there.

@mettyjetty @jaymart222 These are professional posters, not regular ol’ landlords just trying to get by. I thought people should know. Literally their job to post this stuff.

@jameshirschfeld @jaymart222 low IQ attempt at personal attack when you can't critique any of the content you people hate getting in the details because it demonstrates your ideology is the problem

As I have repeatedly shown, when an apartment that’s been lived in for decades becomes vacant it needs extensive amounts of work. This is true if the owner is a nonprofit, a private rent stabilized owner, or the government itself. The problem with NYCHA is the same problem with rent stabilized property owners. They need hundreds of thousands of dollars to renovate each apartment to get it up to new code standards and ready to be lived in. In NYCHA's case, they need 87 billion dollars for 180k units. In a rent stabilized owner's case, they need the ability to reset rent when the apartment becomes vacant because currently, the rent on an empty apartment is controlled at the same price the prior renter paid regardless of its operation and renovation needs. There are ten times more vacant RS units than public, they are older than NYCHA, their “affordability” is costs less to the government than NYCHA even with a voucher (in fact, they produce tax revenue, not draw from it), and the length of average occupancy is longer. Restoration and preservation of rent stabilized apartments cost money and must be addressed by allowing for realistic rent adjustments when apartments become vacant. Just like every single other city in the country allows.

@WestHarlm @KennyBurgosNY housing is a highly regulated market. like insurance, utilities, etc. laws change all the time in ways that affect investments. I'm sorry this investment didn't work out for you.

@jameshirschfeld @KennyBurgosNY They changed the laws after we bought.

These are so frustrating to receive. A building owner sent me this video of a 2BR Upper West Side apartment he just got back, but after he empties it out it will stay vacant going forward. The tenant lived here since 1985 and the current legal rent is $940.01 Because of the 2019 HSTPA law, a building owner is expected to fully renovate this unit to current building code (that’s a good thing), but also expected to lose money in perpetuity at the same time. This 2BD would need well over $100,000 to clean out the debris, comply with lead laws, upgrade major systems, remove the Sheetrock + much more just to make this into an apartment a tenant would actually want to live in with dignity. But the law says the $940 rent would still end up below the estimated $1300/mo it costs to operate the apt which covers insurance, property taxes, labor, fuel, and capital expenditures for the building. So if the new rent falls below the operating cost, the owner would still lose money every month and never see $1 back from the $100k+ renovation. Why would the state expect anyone to lose money like this? What bank would ever provide a loan with no path to repayment? Why do we acknowledge the cost to build housing but ignore what it takes to preserve older housing? Why do we accept this policy when thousands of New Yorkers are searching for housing in the midst of the worst supply crunch we’ve ever seen? So frustrating.

@jaymart222 ever heard of cap rate? It's how you know what to pay for a building and it's based on the expenses and income of the building. this is basic stuff. also, regulatory laws change all the time in ways that affect investments. housing is a highly regulated market!

Vacancy Control. Tenant died in February 2025; it took a year in housing court to gain possession. The renter occupied the unit for 46 years. He owed $19,957.41 on a rent of $1,234.87 at the time of death. Operating cost is $1,380, so it “makes” -$146 every month before renovation costs. The rent cannot be changed on vacsncy and tbe Rent Guidlines Board does not keep up with cost. There is no mechanism to cover the costs of the full gut renovation needed for the next renter, nor will a bank extend a loan to do the work to cover the costs with a rent that can never pay it back. As a result, the unit will stay empty. This is your city on vacancy control.

@LincolnRestler WOWOW that would be amazing!!

A Citi Bike ride shouldn’t cost a penny more than a subway or bus ride. We’ve got a bill to cap e-bike fees at $3 and end Citi Bike-flation.

@ElectileDysfx @michelletandler I would just pay the amount that would give me a 10% cap rate. That’s how you value rental property. It’s an easy calculation.

@jameshirschfeld @michelletandler We’ve talked about this. Selling requires a buyer. Who’s buying a business hemorrhaging cash with no legal ability to change that that also unconstitutionally can’t close? Unless it’s for peanuts and to do nothing except hope for a rapid and favorable SCOTUS decision.

Last weekend, I met a guy who is living in a two-bedroom apartment at 70th and Broadway for $2380. That would cost ~$10k on the free market. So the man essentially gets $7k/month from his landlord, mandated by the state government. Rent control is why the rent is so high.

@JoeyMannarino A certain fact? Do you all not hear yourselves? It’s clearly a close race. Your guy may lose. That’s how elections work. Why debase yourself like this? And for what? Orban is an autocrat.

Tomorrow’s election in Hungary will be won by Viktor Orban and the Fidesz Party. This is a certain fact. The uncertain fact is if the EU and the globalist forces will allow a fair counting of the votes. The opposition is not nearly as strong as the media wants you to think they are. They do this every four years in Hungary. And then Orban wins anyway because the people back him. The difference this time is the desperation of the EU to get Orban out. They know he’s the last TRUE common sense leader with the balls to do what must be done to preserve his nation and also stop the worst instincts of Brussels. Be prepared for the EU & Tisza to claim fraud when Orban brings it home. That’s their only actual solution and their only actual chance. A free and fair election will be won by Orban. Any other outcome will be suspect. Not because I’m biased, but because I’m not falling for the fake news.

@ElectileDysfx @michelletandler Why don’t you consider that they can sell the buildings? You say they have no way out. But I f course they do. My RS building has changed hands 5 times in last 20 years. (Not before i got $40K judgment for rent overcharge cha-ching)

@jameshirschfeld @michelletandler Again: unprecedented. And unconstitutional.

@ElectileDysfx @michelletandler There is no NYC rent stabilization. State law. Most new buildings have rent stabilized apartments that the building owners literally applied to have. I think that undercuts your argument. Why would Two Trees opt for RS if it was an unconstitutional taking? Makes no sense

@jameshirschfeld @michelletandler That’s false. Two justices have publicly advocated for taking on a case (takes 4 to grant cert). They even gave advice on what future case they would take up. NYC RC/RS clearly violates multiple tenets under which rent controls were allowed to stand.

@ElectileDysfx @michelletandler Taxi medallions are a good example of policy changes severely impairing an asset class and wiping out investor equity. That’s not unprecedented. nursing homes: Facilities are required to keep operating to protect residents, even when Medicaid doesn’t cover rising costs.

@jameshirschfeld @michelletandler Again, name one such industry where government policy puts participants into ever worsening insolvency and bankruptcy yet unconstitutionally forces them to keep offering the product without compensating for those ongoing losses. It IS unprecedented.

@ElectileDysfx @michelletandler SCOTUS has no interest in tackling rent regulation. This case comes to them every year. Not enough votes to even hear the case. I think they implicitly understand states have the power to regulate the rental market.

@jameshirschfeld @michelletandler Prior to 2019, the law impacted value but it didn’t pit its value on a path to zero. Today the only reason many of these buildings have value is owners hoping to hold out long enough for a law change or, perhaps more likely, for SCOTUS to intervene.

@ElectileDysfx @michelletandler I see what you’re saying. I think the current investors who overpaid for the buildings will get wiped out. Lenders (banks) will lose their investment. But i believe new owners will buy the buildings at prices that reflect the current laws.

@ElectileDysfx @michelletandler HSTBA was a policy change that removed certain revenue mechanisms. That happens across many regulated industries. It may be a bad policy in your view, but it’s not some unprecedented event. Pre-2019 rules weren’t guaranteed—they were policy choices, and policy can change.

@jameshirschfeld @michelletandler Pre-2019, owners had other avenues to increase rents by investing in a property or via partial vacancy control with a “vacancy bonus”. That and the ability to deregulate went away with HSTPA, and with the RGB providing little to no increases, units are on a path to insolvency.

@ElectileDysfx @michelletandler But this is exactly happens with the rent guidelines board. Investors buy these buildings KNOWING that rent increases or (reductions) are set by a state board of political appointees. It’s naive to think these investors don’t understand the risk

@jameshirschfeld @michelletandler 2. Insurers have rates regulated by boards but get the opportunity to lay out their reasons for seeking increases, AND they’ll opt not to offer a product or plan OR to leave a market entirely if they don’t believe the potential reward justifies their risk. Not so for NYC RS.

@ElectileDysfx @michelletandler They can sell the building… why do you think they can’t exit the investment once it has gone sour?

@ElectileDysfx @michelletandler Hospitals and doctors treating Medicare/Medicaid patients have fixed reimbursement rates set by the government, regardless of their actual costs. They can’t just raise prices, and many can’t realistically opt out without losing most of their patient base.

@ElectileDysfx @michelletandler Electric utilities are often legally capped on what they can charge, even when their costs rise. They’ve made huge capital investments and can’t just “exit” without massive losses. That’s a regulated market—same basic dynamic. Same with health insurance.