Civic ReportNo. 34 March 2003Who Really Benefits from New York City’s Rent Regulation System?
Table 8: Stabilized Units Turning Over At Least Once During 1997–1998, By Borough, New York City
Borough
Quartile
Median Stabilized Rent
Total Number of Stabilized Units
Units Turning Over at Least Once During 1997–1998
Percent
Number of Units
Bronx
all
$550
185,406
30%
55,203
1
361
15%
6,999
2
513
31%
14,787
3
598
36%
16,500
4
743
37%
16,917
Brooklyn
$607
268,822
84,457
450
17%
11,943
575
33%
22,144
666
24,534
843
39%
25,836
Lower and Mid-Manhattan
$1,000
238,425
70,716
500
20%
10,830
875
32%
17,090
1165
20,348
1700
42%
22,448
Upper Manhattan1
$600
111,215
43,232
350
16%
5,410
535
25%
8,542
668
12,673
922
49%
16,607
Queens
$690
196,691
61,348
498
19%
9,260
626
15,777
728
34%
17,177
900
38%
19,134
Staten Island
$650
10,341
43%
4,497
400
28%
752
642
960
735
54%
1,440
55%
1,345
New York City Total
1,010,900
319,453
Notes: 1. Includes Lower East Side / Chinatown
Table 9: Two-Year Vacancy Deregulation of Stabilized Units, Adjusted For Subsidy Levels, Predicted Rent Changes and Number of Units Affected, By Borough, New York City
Median Subsidy
Subsidy as Percent of Rent, Median
Median Rent Change from 100% Deregulation
Adjusted ** Rent Change from Vacancy Deregulation
Rent Change
Percent Affected
Units Affected
$58
10%
$37
$54
21%
38,642
$5
1%
*
66,721
$1000
$397
$218
$374
13%
30,408
$9
2%
33,721
49,078
35%
3,598
$42
6%
$8
$35
22%
222,168
Notes:* Effectively Zero** Adjusted to take into account subsidy levels and overcounting; see text1. Includes Lower Eastside/Chinatown
[Table 1] [Table 2] [Table 3] [Table 4] [Table 5] [Table 6] [Table 7] [Table 8] [Table 9] [Table A-1] [Table A-2] [Table A-3] [Table A-4] [Table A-5] [Table A-6] [Table A-7] [Table A-8] [Table A-9] [Table A-10] [Table A-11]