#society system decontrol

[bestfuckinmusic]

SSD - First Show - 19/9/81

A marker in the history of hardcore and straight edge music!

That pit :)

[savage-kult-of-gorthaur]

THE YEAR THAT AMERICAN HARDCORE PEAKED -- JUST KIDS GOING WILD IN '83.

PIC(S) INFO: Spotlight on Boston hardcore punk band SOCIETY SYSTEM DECONTROL, later SS DECONTROL, and then finally SSD, playing live at CBGB, NYC, c. 1983. 📸: Phil in Phlash.

"...With ferocious, warp-speed songs that rarely cracked the two-minute mark, the band carried out a scorched-earth campaign on the classic rock — and even punk rock — of the ���70s. The photographer Philin Phlash, whose brother, David Spring (universally known as “Springa”), was the band’s aggressively jabbering vocalist, took hundreds of photos of SSD’s kinetic shows and the slam-dancing they inspired."

-- THE BOSTON GLOBE (James Sullivan, c. September 11, 2023)

Sources: www.bostonglobe.com/2023/09/11/arts/ssds-hardcore-history-bound-book, Last FM, Pinterest, Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), Main Threat, various, etc...

[thoughtswordsaction]

SSD to Reissue Seminal Album "Get It Away" On July 19 Via Trust Records

Universally recognized as the first straight-edge band, SSD’s (Society System Decontrol) 1982 debut The Kids Will Have Their Say is considered a landmark release for hardcore music. However, many fans consider their 1983 sophomore effort Get It Away to be the band’s most crucial release. Most notable is the addition of guitarist Francois Levesque who joined the classic lineup of the “Boston…

[monkeyspanker69]

[punkrockpariah]

Update on my Vest!

[drugstorecowboi]

GOTTA STICK TOGETHER LIKE GLUE!!!!!

[damieninbred]

Facades: Doomed Society (Redux) vol. 3

Facades: Doomed Society (Redux) vol. 3

Eh up, nerds! Here we are back at it again with a brain-spanking new episode of Doomed Society Radio (Redux)! (more…)

[reidio-silence]

The Workies were of mixed mind as to what to do with city government should they get hold of it. Some advocated an activist policy of mechanic’s liens, aid to internal improvements, government funding of education, and an ongoing regulation of the municipal economy in the public interest. But a greater number denounced government intervention in the economy—both the grant of special corporate privileges and the maintenance of municipal regulations—as an unwarranted colonial holdover, a violation of democracy on a par with the now eliminated suffrage restrictions.

In 1828 the Common Council still appointed or licensed nearly seven thousand people, including butchers, grocers, tavern keepers, cartmen, hackney coachmen, pawnbrokers, and market clerks, together with platoons of inspectors, weighers, measurers, and gaugers of lumber, lime, coal, and flour. From the Workingmen’s perspective, licenses sheltered their privileged holders from competition that could lower prices. Regulations and fees indirectly taxed food and drink, as vendors passed on the costs they accrued in obtaining licenses, buying market stalls, paying fines, and bribing corrupt city inspectors. (Grocers, in particular, complained that inspectors had “a long Pocket for themselves.”) The whole system was kept in place, Workies suspected, less for the public’s convenience than to provide the government with revenue, which it could then share out with cronies and patronage recipients.

In an 1830 petition to the City Council, the Workingmen demanded an end to privileged monopolies in the local economy. They called for abolition of market laws and chartered licenses, the sale of all city-owned property in markets, an enhanced reliance on property taxes for revenue, the granting of permission to butchers and hucksters to sell anywhere in the city, the establishment of tax-free country markets (with adjacent taverns) that would entice farmers to the city, and the exemption of market produce from ferry or bridge tolls.

The closely watched trades—some of them well represented in the new party—were ambivalent about deregulation. Butchers, grocers, and tavern keepers were enticed by free enterprise but nervous about it. Some butchers came out for economic freedom: in 1829 one rebel, refusing to rent a market stall, opened New York City’s first private meat shop. But city protection had served butchers well, and most demanded more of it, not less, asking the city to clamp down on unlicensed (and overhead-free) hucksters. Grocers complained of being pestered by inspectors, yet griped that the city didn’t protect them from black, Irish, and female peddlers. Tavern keepers sought the freedom to sell alcohol on Sunday but also wanted authorities to crack down on unlicensed Irish groggeries. Bakers, after wobbling on the issue earlier in the century, had come out definitively against regulation in 1821. Calling themselves the “slave of corporation dictation,” they demanded that buyers and sellers be allowed to bargain freely and that bakers be freed from special responsibility for feeding the poor. The Common Council repealed the assize in 1821, abdicating its authority over prices, but continued to require that bread be sold in standard-weight loaves, to lessen the possibility of fraud.

Cartmen, on the other hand, definitely favored regulation. American-born carters complained to the city fathers that Irish immigrants, who had been licensed during the war while Anglo-Dutchmen were off soldiering, were undercutting established rates and stealing customers. Mayor Colden limited future alien licensing to dirt carting, a field the Irish quickly dominated. When they continued to challenge the Anglo-Americans in other areas, the Society of Cartmen petitioned the Common Council to reaffirm their “ancient privileges.” The municipal government agreed, rejecting calls for the decontrol of carting, as the business and trade of the city depended on it, and in 1826 the council banned aliens from carting, pawnbroking, and hackney-coach driving; soon all licensed trades were closed to them.

— Mike Wallace and Edwin G. Burrows, Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 (1998)

[punkrockhistory]

SSD aka SS Decontrol aka Society System Decontrol at Santa Monica Civic Center, Santa Monica, CA, 1983. Photo by Alison Braun

#punk #punks #punkrock #hardcorepunk #ssdecontrol #history #punkrockhistory

[savage-kult-of-gorthaur]

A WHO'S WHO OF PROPER BOSTON HARDCORE PUNK -- ALL OF YOUR FAVORITES ARE HERE.

PIC INFO: Spotlight on a recently unearthed live shot of Boston hardcore punk band SS DECONTROL, c. 1982, venue & location undisclosed. 📸: Phil-in-Phlash (repost from @ssdecontrolofficial).

In the audience can be seen:

Jimmy Johnson ("FORCED EXPOSURE" zine)

Wayne Maestri and Steve Grimes (THE F.U.'s)

Richie Collins (NEGATIVE FX)

Tony Perez (LAST RITES)

Choke (NEGATIVE FX)

Source: www.picuki.com/media/3452050426027983118.

[predictablecitylife]

Mighty Mighty Bosstones - Police Beat

[bitcofun]

This is a viewpoint editorial by Taimur Ahmad, a college student at Stanford University, concentrating on energy, ecological policy and global politics. Author's note: This is the very first part of a three-part publication. Part 1 presents the Bitcoin requirement and examines Bitcoin as an inflation hedge, going deeper into the principle of inflation. Part 2 concentrates on the existing fiat system, how cash is produced, what the cash supply is and starts to talk about bitcoin as cash. Part 3 explores the history of cash, its relationship to state and society, inflation in the Global South, the progressive case for/against Bitcoin as cash and alternative use-cases. Bitcoin As Money: Progressivism, Neoclassical Economics, And Alternatives Part II The following is a direct extension of a list from the previous piece in this series 3. Cash, Money Supply And Banking Now onto the 3rd point that gets everyone riled up on Twitter: What is cash, what is cash printing and what is the cash supply? Let me begin by stating that the very first argument that made me crucial of the political economy of Bitcoin-as-money was the notorious, sacrilegious chart that reveals that the U.S. dollar has actually lost 99% of its worth with time. A lot of Bitcoiners, consisting of Michael Saylor and co., like to share this as the bedrock of the argument for bitcoin as cash. Cash supply increases, worth of the dollar boils down-- currency debasement at the hands of the federal government, as the story goes. Source: Visual Capitalist I have actually currently discussed in Part 1 what I think of the relationship in between cash supply and rates, however here I 'd like to go one level much deeper. Let's begin with what cash is. It is a claim on genuine resources. In spite of the extreme, objected to disputes throughout historians, anthropologists, economic experts, ecologists, theorists, and so on, about what counts as cash or its characteristics, I believe it is sensible to presume that the underlying claim throughout the board is that it is a thing that permits the holder to obtain items and services. With this background then, it does not make good sense to take a look at a separated worth of cash. Truly however, how can somebody reveal the worth of cash in and of itself (e.g., the worth of the dollar is down 99%)? Its worth is just relative to something, either other currencies or the quantity of items and services that can be obtained. The fatalistic chart revealing the debasement of fiat does not state anything. What matters is the buying power of customers utilizing that fiat currency, as salaries and other social relations denominated in fiat currency likewise move synchronously. Are U.S. customers able to purchase 99% less with their earnings? Obviously not. The counterarguments to this usually are that incomes do not stay up to date with inflation which over the short-medium term, money cost savings decline which harms the working class as it does not have access to high yielding financial investments. Genuine salaries in the U.S. have actually been consistent considering that the early 1970 s, which in and of itself is a significant socioeconomic issue. There is no direct causal link in between the expansionary nature of fiat and this wage pattern. The 1970 s were the start of the neoliberal program under which labor power was squashed, economies were decontrolled in favor of capital and commercial tasks were contracted out to underpaid and made use of employees in the Global South. I digress. Let's return to the what is cash concern. Apart from a claim over resources, is cash likewise a shop of worth over the medium term? Once again, I wish to be clear that I am talking just about industrialized countries so far, where run-away inflation isn't a genuine thing so acquiring power does not deteriorate over night. I 'd argue that it is not the function of cash-- money and its equivalents like bank deposits-- to work as a shop of worth over the medium-long term.

It is expected to act as a legal tender which needs cost stability just in the brief run, combined with steady and predicted decline with time. Integrating both functions-- an extremely liquid, exchangeable possession and a long-lasting cost savings system-- into something generates income a complex, and perhaps even inconsistent, principle. To secure buying power, access to monetary services requires to be broadened so that individuals have access to reasonably safe possessions that stay up to date with inflation. Concentration of the monetary sector into a handful of big gamers driven by revenue intention alone is a significant obstacle to this. There is no intrinsic factor that an inflationary fiat currency needs to cause a loss of acquiring power time, particularly when, as argued in Part 1, cost modifications can occur due to the fact that of several non-monetary factors. Our socioeconomic setup, by which I suggest the power of labor to work out salaries, what occurs to benefit, and so on, requires to allow buying power to increase. Let's not forget that in the post-WWII age this was being attained although cash supply was not growing (formally the U.S. was under the gold requirement however we understand it was not being imposed, which resulted in Nixon moving far from the system in 1971). Okay so where does cash originated from and were 40% of dollars printed throughout the 2020 federal government stimulus, as is typically declared? Neoclassical economics, which the Bitcoin basic story uses at numerous levels, argues that the federal government either obtains cash by offering financial obligation, or that it prints cash. Banks provide cash based upon deposits by their customers (savers), with fractional reserve banking enabling banks to provide multiples greater than what is transferred. It comes as not a surprise to anybody who is still checking out that I 'd argue both these principles are incorrect. Here's the appropriate story which (trigger caution once again) is MMT based-- credit where it's due-- however consented to by bond financiers and monetary market specialists, even if they disagree on the ramifications. The federal government has a monopoly on cash development through its position as the sovereign. It produces the nationwide currency, enforces taxes and fines in it and utilizes its political authority to safeguard versus fake. There are 2 unique methods which The State engages with the financial system: one, through the reserve bank, it offers liquidity to the banking system. The reserve bank does not "print cash" as we informally comprehend it, rather it produces bank reserves, an unique type of cash that isn't actually cash that is utilized to purchase products and services in the genuine economy. These are properties for industrial banks that are utilized for inter-bank operations. Quantitative alleviating (those frightening huge numbers that the reserve bank reveals it is injecting by purchasing bonds) is unconditionally not cash printing, however merely reserve banks switching interest bearing bonds with bank reserves, a net neutral deal as far as the cash supply is worried although the reserve bank balance sheet broadens. It does have an effect on property costs through numerous indirect systems, however I will not enter into the information here and will let this excellent thread by Alfonso Peccatiello (@MacroAlf on Twitter) describe. So the next time you become aware of the Fed "printing trillions" or broadening its balance sheet by X trillion, simply think of whether you are really discussing reserves, which once again do not get in the genuine economy so do not add to "more cash chasing after the exact same quantity of items" story, or real cash in flow. Two, the federal government can likewise, through the Treasury, or its comparable, produce cash (regular individuals cash) that is dispersed through the federal government's bank-- the reserve bank. The method operandi for this operation

is normally as follows: Say the federal government chooses to send out a one-time money transfer to all people. The Treasury licenses that payment and jobs the reserve bank to perform it. The reserve bank increases the account that each industrial bank has at the reserve bank (all digital, simply numbers on a screen-- these are reserves being developed). the business banks likewise increase the accounts of their clients (this is cash being produced). customers/citizens get more cash to spend/save. This kind of federal government costs (financial policy) straight injects cash into the economy and is therefore unique from financial policy. Direct money transfers, welfare, payments to suppliers, and so on, are examples of financial costs. Most of what we call cash, nevertheless, is developed by industrial banks straight. Banks are certified representatives of The State, to which The State has actually extended its powers of cash development, and they develop cash out of thin air, unconstrained by reserves, whenever a loan is made. Such is the magic of double-entry accounting, a practice that has actually remained in usage for centuries, where cash enters being as a liability for the company and a property for the receiver, netting out to no. And to repeat, banks do not require a specific quantity of deposits to make these loans. Loans are made based on whether the bank believes it makes financial sense to do so-- if it requires reserves to fulfill guidelines, it merely obtains them from the reserve bank. There are capital, not reserve, restrictions on financing however those are beyond the scope of this piece. The main factor to consider for banks in making loans/creating cash is revenue maximization, not whether it has enough deposits in its vault. Banks are developing deposits by making loans. This is an essential shift in the story. My example for this is moms and dads (neoclassical economic experts) informing kids a phony birds and bees story in reaction to the concern of where infants originate from. Rather, they never ever remedy it causing an adult citizenry running around without understanding about recreation. This is why the majority of people still speak about fractional reserve banking or there being some naturally repaired supply of cash that the personal and public sectors contend over, since that's what econ 101 teaches us. Let's review the principle of cash supply now. Provided that many of the cash in blood circulation comes from the banking sector, and that this cash production is not constrained by deposits, it is affordable to declare that the stock of cash in the economy is not simply driven by supply, however by need. If companies and people are not requiring brand-new loans, banks are not able to produce brand-new cash. This has a cooperative relationship with business cycle, as cash production is driven by expectations and market outlook however likewise drives financial investment and growth of output. The chart listed below programs a step of bank loaning compared to M2. While the 2 have a favorable connection, it does not constantly hold, as is glaringly apparent in2020 Even though M2 was rising greater post-pandemic, banks were not providing due to unpredictable financial conditions. As far as inflation is worried, there is the included intricacy of what banks are providing for, i.e., whether those loans are being utilized for efficient ends, which would increase financial output or ineffective ends, which would wind up resulting in (property) inflation. This choice is not driven by the federal government, however by the economic sector. The last problem to include here is that while the above metrics work as beneficial steps for what takes place within the United States economy, they do not catch the cash production that occurs in the eurodollar market(eurodollars have absolutely nothing to do with the euro, they merely describe the presence of USD outside the U.S. economy). Jeff Snider provided

an exceptional run through of this throughout his look on the What Bitcoin Did podcast for anybody who desires a deep-dive, however basically this is a network of banks that run outside the U.S., are not under the official jurisdiction of any regulative authority and have the license to produce U.S. dollars in foreign markets. This is due to the fact that the USD is the reserve currency and needed for global trade in between 2 celebrations that might not have anything to do with the U.S. even. A French bank might release a loan denominated in U.S. dollars to a Korean business desiring to purchase copper from a Chilean miner. The quantity of cash developed in this market is anybody's guess and for this reason, a real procedure of the cash supply is not even practical. This is what Alan Greenspan needed to state in a 2000 FOMC conference: " The issue is that we can not draw out from our analytical database what holds true cash conceptually, either in the deals mode or the store-of-value mode." Here he refers not simply to the Eurodollar system however likewise the expansion of intricate monetary items that inhabit the shadow banking system. It's tough to speak about cash supply when it's difficult to even specify cash, provided the occurrence of money-like alternatives. Therefore, the argument that federal government intervention through financial and financial growth drives inflation is just not real as the majority of the cash in flow is outside the direct control of the federal government. Could the federal government get too hot the economy through overspending? Sure. That is not some predefined relationship and is subject to the state of the economy, expectations, and so on The concept that the federal government is printing trillions of dollars and debasing its currency is, to no one's surprise at this point, simply not real. Just taking a look at financial intervention by the federal government provides an insufficient image as that injection of liquidity might be, and in most cases is, offseting the loss of liquidity in the shadow banking sector. Inflation is a complex subject, driven by customer expectations, business rates power, cash in flow, supply chain disturbances, energy expenses, and so on. It can not and must not be merely lowered to a financial phenomenon, particularly not by taking a look at something as one-dimensional as the M2 chart. Lastly, the economy needs to be seen, as the post-Keynesians revealed, as interlocking balance sheets. This holds true merely through accounting identity-- somebody's possession needs to be another person's liability. When we talk about paying back the financial obligation or minimizing federal government costs, the concern must be what other balance sheets get impacted and how. Let me offer a streamlined example: in the 1990 s throughout the Clinton age, the U.S. federal government commemorated budget plan surpluses and repaying its nationwide financial obligation. Given that by meaning somebody else had to be getting more indebted, the U.S. family sector racked up more financial obligation And because families could not develop cash while the federal government could, that increased the total danger in the monetary sector. Bitcoin As Money I can picture individuals checking out till now (if you made it this far) stating "Bitcoin repairs this!" since it's transparent, has a set issuance rate and a supply cap of 21 million. Here I have both financial and philosophic arguments when it comes to why these functions, no matter the present state of fiat currency, are not the remarkable service that they are explained to be. The very first thing to keep in mind here is that, as this piece has actually ideally revealed so far, that because the rate of modification of cash supply is not equivalent to inflation, inflation under BTC is not transparent or programmatic and will still go through the forces of need and supply, power of the cost setters, exogenous shocks, and so on Money is the grease that permits the cogs of the economy to churn without excessive friction.

It streams to sectors of the economy that need more of it, permits brand-new opportunities to establish and serves as a system that, preferably, settle wrinkles. The Bitcoin basic argument rests on the neoclassical presumption that the federal government controls (or controls, as Bitcoiners call it) the cash supply which battling away this power would result in some real type of a financial system. Our existing monetary system is mostly run by a network of personal stars that The State has little bit, probably too little, control over, regardless of these stars benefitting from The State guaranteeing deposits and acting as the loan provider of last resort. And yes, obviously elite capture of The State makes the nexus in between banks and the federal government culpable for this mess. But even if we take the Hayekian technique, which concentrates on decentralizing control entirely and utilizing the cumulative intelligence of society, countering the present system with these functions of Bitcoin falls under the technocratic end of the spectrum since they are authoritative and produce rigidness. Should there be a cap on cash supply? What is the proper issuance of brand-new cash? Should this keep in all scenarios agnostic of other socioeconomic conditions? Pretending that Satoshi in some way had the ability to respond to all these concerns throughout time and area, to the level that nobody need to make any modifications, appears incredibly technocratic for a neighborhood that is discussing the "individuals's cash" and liberty from the tyranny of specialists. Bitcoin is not democratic and not managed by the individuals, in spite of it providing a low barrier to go into the monetary system. Even if it is not centrally governed and the guidelines can't be altered by a little minority does not, by meaning, indicate Bitcoin is some bottom-up kind of cash. It is not neutral cash either due to the fact that the option to produce a system that has actually a repaired supply is a subjective and political option of what cash need to be, instead of some a priori exceptional quality. Some advocates may state that, if requirement be, Bitcoin can be altered through the action of the bulk, however as quickly as this door is opened, concerns of politics, equality and justice flood back in, taking this discussion back to the start of history. This is not to state that these functions are not important-- certainly they are, as I argue later on, however for other use-cases. Therefore, my contentions so far have actually been that: Understanding the cash supply is made complex due to the fact that of the monetary intricacy at play. The cash supply does not always cause inflation. Governments do not manage the cash supply which reserve bank cash (reserves) are not the very same thing as cash. Inflationary currencies do not always result in a loss of acquiring power, which that depends more on the socioeconomic setup. An endogenous, flexible cash supply is required to adapt to financial modifications. Bitcoin is not democratic cash merely despite the fact that its governance is decentralized. In Part 3, I talk about the history of cash and its relationship with the state, evaluate other conceptual arguments that underpin the Bitcoin Standard, offer a viewpoint on the Global South, and present alternative use-cases. This is a visitor post by Taimur Ahmad. Viewpoints revealed are totally their own and do not always show those of BTC, Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine. Read More

[nofxshrinkwrap]

“Crazier than GG, More PC than Ian. Got colored teeth like Johnny, Exudes a vicious disposition. His hair sticks out like Colin's did, he jumps, Similar to Springa, he points his middle finga. Not just the singer in the band. Voted biggest asshole, and role model of the year. Got a face like Charles Bronson, Straight outta Green Bay, Wisconsin, Not just a singer in the band. He'll puke on you, he'll fuck your mom, He'll smoke while huffing gas. He was the punkest mother fucker I ever did see. 'Ah Hell he's even more punk than me.' He should've been on the cover, He should've been on the cover, He should've been on the cover of Punk and Disorderly (Volume II)”

          Fat Mike, NOFX [References In This Song] [Crazier than GG: GG Allin was in the Jabbers, the Scumfucs, Antiseen and the Murder Junkies.] [More PC than Ian: Ian MacKaye, lead singer of Minor Threat. Began the Straight edge movement] [Got colored teeth like Johhny: Johnny Rotten from the Sex Pistols] [Exudes a vicious disposition: Sid Vicious from the Sex Pistols] [His hair sticks out like Colin's did: Colin Jerwood, lead singer of Conflict, he had long liberty spikes] [He jumps similar to Springa: Springa AKA David Spring, the lead singer from Society System Decontrol]

Lyrics and references via plyrics.com

[ashfaultradio]

This week on Doomed Society, we have hits 'n shits from Limp Wrist, GLOSS, Paroxysm, The Varukers, Warwound, Tau Cross, and SO MUCH MORE!

www.doomedsocietypunx.com facebook.com/DoomedSocietyRadio/

LIMP WRIST: facades G.L.O.S.S.: fight XYLITOL: atrocity man INFANTILE DISSENTION: trans panic DOXX: stuck in hetero BALLOT BURNER: dirt merchants PAROXYSM: white picket fence CHUPACABRA: deep scars DECONTROL: armed to the fucking teeth STATE OF MINEFIELDS: bite the hand VARUKERS: die for your government BROKEN BONES: decapitated ABRASIVE WHEELS: attack MANIA: power to the people SKEPTIX: war drum ANTI-SYSTEM: eyes wide shut WARWOUND: the world we deserve SACRILEGE: dig your own grave (2015) DEVIATED INSTINCT: thorn in your flesh EXIT STANCE: 1916 TAU CROSS: deep state TAU CROSS: pillar of fire

[r-a-d-i-o-a-k-t-i-v]

VA - Does Dis System Work 1995

01. Discharge - Realities of war (1980) 02. Disclose - The bombardment (1993) 03. Discharge - War's no fairytale (1980) 04. Discard - Fear (1986) 05. Discharge - Decontrol (1980) 06. Doom - A dream to come true (1988) 07. Discharge - Two monstrous nuclear stockpi les (1981 ) 08. Asocial - Q And children A And children 09. Discharge - Doom's day (1982) 10. Perukers - Protest and survive (1993) 11. Discharge -Born to die in the gutter (1983) 12. Disfear - Fear (1992) 13. Discharge - Ain't no feeble bastard (1981) 14. Selfish - Condemned (1992) 15. Discharge - Society's victim (1980) 16. Dischange - After war scars (1991) 17. Discharge - Fight back (1980) 18. Final Conflict - A look at tomorrow (1991) 19. Discharge - No TV sktech (1980) 20. Crow - No violence (1987) 27. Discharge - Visions of war (1981) 28. Anti Cimex - Set me free (1984) 29. Discharge -They declare it (1980) 30. Disarm - Säg nej (198_) 31. Discharge - Always restrictions (1980) 32. Dissober - America did this (1993) 33. Discharge - Tomorrow belongs to us (1980) 34. Time Square Preachers - Ain't smiling (1994) 35. Discharge - Doest his sytem work 36. Disclose - The end of blood (1994)

is this the greatest tape comp. ever?!

[abujaihs-blog]

Rent Regulations in New York: How They’ll Affect Tenants and Landlords

Democratic lawmakers in New York harnessed their new powers on Tuesday to broker sweeping changes to rent laws in order to protect tenants in a state with some of the country’s most expensive housing markets. The regulations that lawmakers agreed upon would stretch beyond New York City to the entire state, allowing other municipalities to enact their own rules to keep apartments affordable. Both chambers of the State Legislature are expected to vote on the new package this week, before the current set of regulations are set to expire on Saturday. Unlike previous regulations, which had to be renewed once they expired, the new rules would be permanent. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, has pledged to sign whatever bill lawmakers pass. The new rules would mark a turning point for the 2.4 million people who live in nearly one million rent-regulated apartments in New York City after a steady erosion of protections and the loss of tens of thousands of regulated apartments. “This package of legislation will reverse decades of rampant landlord abuse and enact much-needed protections for hundreds of thousands of tenants,” said Adriene Holder, a lawyer at the Legal Aid Society. But landlords warned that removing incentives for them to renovate buildings and lowering their rental income would lead to worse housing conditions for many New Yorkers.

“You will see a slow erosion in the quality of housing going out in three or four years,” said Joseph Strasburg, the president of the Rent Stabilization Association, which represents 25,000 landlords.

What apartments are rent regulated?

There is a lot of jargon around rent, resulting in confusion about what the different terms mean. Broadly speaking, two types of rent-regulated units exist in New York City: rent controlled and rent stabilized. The changes will apply to both. Rent control in the city became popular after World War II when soldiers returned home and sought apartments for their families. The demand caused rents to increase, leading to a housing shortage. At its height, more than two million rent-controlled apartments existed in the city, but only a small fraction remain: about 22,000, according to a 2017 survey. For an apartment to be rent-controlled, a tenant or family member must have been living in the unit since at least July 1971, and the building had to have been built before 1947. Families can pass the unit to another member and preserve the rent-control status. A unit that falls out of rent control can be leased at market rate. The second system, rent stabilization, applies to apartments in buildings with at least six units that were built between 1947 and 1974, as well as newer buildings that receive tax breaks for so-called affordable housing. Rent increases at stabilized units are determined by the city’s Rent Guidelines Board. This year the board allowed for 1.5 percent increases for one-year leases and 2.5 percent for two-year leases.

What do the new changes mean for tenants?

Tenants in rent-regulated apartments would largely see an end to big rent increases under the new legislation. The Rent Guidelines Board will continue to determine yearly increases on rent-stabilized units, but the following rules that benefited landlords would be changed or abolished: Vacancy decontrol: When the legal rent for a rent-stabilized apartment reached a certain rate, currently $2,774 per month, it could revert to market-rate if there is a vacancy. The rule has led to the deregulation of more than 155,000 units since it was enacted in the 1990s. This practice would be ended. The vacancy bonus: Landlords for rent-stabilized apartments have been able to hike rents by as much as 20 percent after tenants moved out. The new rules would prevent that. Rent hikes based on building improvements: Landlords have been able to increase rents in regulated apartments by up to 6 percent per year if they made improvements that “directly or indirectly” benefited all tenants, such as a new boiler. That increase would now be capped at 2 percent per year. Rent hikes that were permitted if landlords renovated or improved individual apartments would also now be limited. Misuse of “preferential” rents: Landlords of rent-stabilized apartments can offer units to tenants for a price lower than the legal regulated rent. But they can no longer raise the rent to the legally mandated limit when a lease is renewed, a practice that was pushing tenants out. High-income deregulation: If a tenant in a rent-stabilized unit earned over $200,000 a year in two consecutive years, the landlord could deregulate the unit. That will no longer be allowed. The “owner-use” loophole: Landlords and their family members have been able to remove rent-stabilized tenants from multiple units to use them as residences, a rule sometimes abused by landlords as a way to ultimately raise rents. Now, landlords will only be able to claim “owner use” for one apartment for use as their primary residence.

What do the changes mean for landlords?

Trade groups and real estate lobbyists warned of dire consequences as a result of the new regulations. They said smaller landlords could be run out of business because of new limits on rent increases and restrictions on raising rent after improvements. Ultimately, they said, units and buildings could fall into disrepair. Some analysts predicted that the New York housing market overall could be depressed because the resale market for rent-regulated apartments would lose value as a result of the changes. The Real Estate Board of New York, an influential trade group that primarily represents larger developers, predicted that building owners would no longer have an incentive to invest in their rent-regulated units.

“This legislation fails to address the city’s housing crisis, and will lead to disinvestment in the city’s private sector rental stock, consigning hundreds of thousands of rent-regulated tenants to living in buildings that are likely to fall into disrepair,” said the Taxpayers for an Affordable New York, a coalition of four real estate groups.

Are the rules just for regulated apartments?

The package of protections extends well beyond those living in rent-regulated apartments to all New Yorkers renting apartments: Security deposits will be limited to one month’s rent and procedures will be improved to make it easier for renters to get their security deposits back. Tenants who were seen as troublemakers by landlords — perhaps for standing up for their rights — would sometimes end up on blacklists that would be shared among rental agencies. That practice would be banned. Tenants would be better protected during the eviction process, particularly against retaliatory evictions. Unlawful evictions, such as when a landlord illegally locks out or uses force to evict a tenant, would become a crime, a misdemeanor punishable by a civil penalty of between $1,000 and $10,000 per violation. Landlords would be required to provide at least 30 days notice to tenants if they intend to increase the rent by more than 5 percent or are not going to renew the lease Source: New York Times Read the full article