One of the two properties, called Aire, has 42 stories and 310 units. It was developed by the firm A & R Kalimian Realty. The rent for two-bedroom comes at a minimum of $6,000. The other newcomer, Corner, is comprised of 19 stories and 196 units. Corner was developed by Gotham Organization. The two-bedroom monthly rent for Corner starts at $8,000.

According to local rental market observers, these rents are around three times more than the usual two-bedroom rents required by most properties in the area as of March 2010. For Corner, the highest rent for three-bedrooms starts at $18,000, while Aire rents can reach as much as $20,000.

Despite the relatively high rents required by the two buildings, local real estate analysts believe that they will not have any problem getting tenants. They added that properties rental in the league of Aire and Corner is starting to attract more people. They cited the Grand Tier, a building that rents for a start of $7,000, as example.

Properties near the 72nd Street have been moving towards upscale accommodations in the past few years. Realtors have stated that this trend is evident through properties for-rent like the Time Warner Center, the Central Park West condominium and condominium units at the Apple Bank.

Rental property experts have also stated that the amenities of Corner and Aire demonstrate the shift from regular walk-ups to more upscale properties. Reports revealed that every room of the Corner has a dryer and washer, glass shelves and medicine cabinets in the bathrooms.

Meanwhile, Aire units were designed like a boutique hotel, with pedestal sinks, stainless refrigerators and mahogany floors being just some of the amenities. Rooms at the Aire range between 415 square feet and 2,000 square feet.

Properties rental in the Upper West Side used to be dominated by walk-up buildings with cheaper rental rates. The opening of Aire and Corner is being seen by local market observers as a sign that the area is now moving towards doorman-guarded buildings and more upscale properties.

Under this new legislation, owners of rental housing built after 1979 will have to follow tenant eviction laws followed by owners of residential rental properties built before 1979. Under tenant eviction laws prior to 1979, landlords are prohibited from evicting renters without a reasonable cause. Tenants can only be evicted by just reasons such as breach of lease contract or failure to pay rent.

The new legislation would affect about 20,000 residential rental properties built after 1979 and about 10,000 units more which are being constructed or being planned.

While tenant advocates were elated at the approval of the eviction protection legislation, they cannot claim complete victory yet because the legislation still needs approval from Mayor Gavin Newsom, who had expressed strong opposition to the legislation that would add more challenges to those currently faced by owners of house rentals.

According to spokesperson Joe Arellano, Mayor Newsom planned to veto the proposal, and his veto can be upheld if the final voting by the board gives him the majority. The latest voting, 7-4, needed one more vote so that the legislation would become veto-proof.

The board will again consider the legislation to get the veto-proof majority, but the swing vote – expected to come from Supervisor Bevan Duffy – may not be easy to get. According to Duffy, he does not plan to change his vote.

But Duffy, who has expressed his plan to run for mayor in 2011, is being pressured by renters and tenant advocates to change his vote. Sara Shortt, head of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, said that voting for the proposal should be an easy decision for any city lawmaker because 60 percent of the city is comprised by renters and there is a shortage of affordable housing.

According to Duffy, he would have voted yes if the legislation focused on evictions due to foreclosures. He argued that the legislation would have unintended consequences.

In addition, real estate owners and investors in San Francisco argued that the new legislation would diminish real estate rights and violate a pledge made by city officials to owners of house rentals when they enacted the rent control law in 1979.

Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the center also found that renters in New Orleans spent more for rent and utility bills than renters in the other cities studied in 2008, including Las Vegas, Baltimore, New York City, Milwaukee, Memphis, Phoenix and San Antonio.

Out of all New Orleans renters, 41 percent spent at least half of their pre-tax salaries for their rental housing.
In Jefferson Parish and Saint Tammany, 27 percent of households spent 50 percent of their income for rent.

Last year, the median monthly rent in Saint Tammany was $982. The median in New Orleans was $908 and the median in Jefferson was $854.

According to affordable housing advocates, the burden of paying rental costs in New Orleans is heavier because of increases in costs of living in the metro area.

Landlords in New Orleans also explained that they have to increase their rents because they spent high costs in building and maintaining their house rentals after the Katrina disaster.

Homeowners in New Orleans also bear heavier housing burdens than other cities because of increases in the costs of insurance premiums, taxes and utilities in the metro area.

In Saint Tammany, 27 percent of homeowners spent more than 33 percent of their monthly income on housing costs while Jefferson homeowners spent 26 percent – lower than the nationwide average of 31 percent.

Among lower-income New Orleans homeowners, 36 percent spent more than 33 percent of their income on housing costs. Low-income homeowners particularly have been suffering because 81 percent of them spent more than 33 percent of their monthly income on housing costs.

Housing advocates cite the difficulties of the low- and lower-income families in paying their monthly home loan payments as major reasons for foreclosures in the city. They said that post-Katrina salaries have not increased to keep pace with the increase in rents.

According to the Data Center, the rise in New Orleans housing costs to unaffordable levels is a clear indicator that the city needs to step up its affordable housing programs.

But the State Bond Commission decided to stop subsidizing affordable construction in the city in September until a comprehensive market study on house rentals and affordable housing is completed.

In the third quarter of this year, effective rents dropped for the fourth consecutive quarter, the first time it occurred since Reis began monitoring rents in 2008. Effective rent refers to the final amount after incentives such as free one-month rent are deducted.

Victor Calanog, head of research at Reis, also said that in addition to freebies and incentives, landlords have also been lowering their asking rents sharply to entice tenants. They figured that lower income is better than nothing.

According to Calanog, tenants can ask a lot of concessions from landlords. Some landlords are even offering up to 4 months of free rent. Others are offering interior design upgrades, repainting work and free gym memberships. In some cases, if renters ask for assurance that their rents are not going to be raised after their one-year lease contracts expire, they get the pledge.

Based on data from brokerage Marcus & Millichap, the cities offering the most concessions are Atlanta, Denver, Charlotte, Phoenix and Austin.

In Atlanta, landlords are offering an average of 1.5 months free rent; Denver and Charlotte offering 1.4 months; Austin, 1.3 months; Phoenix, 1.2 months; Dallas-Fort Worth and Detroit, 1.1 months; Portland, 1 month; and Orlando and Salt Lake City, offering 0.9 months.

The cities with the weakest home for rental market are Omaha, Memphis and Indianapolis, but these cities are not in the list of cities offering concessions. As vacancy rates increase in these three cities, landlords are advised by analysts to reduce their rents or provide incentives.

According to Calanog, the depressed rents are not likely to reverse their direction in the next several months because of the continued increase in low-priced residential properties and increase in the unemployment rate.

Nonetheless, there are markets which are experiencing increases in rents such as Long Island and Colorado Springs. Both markets showed a 1.6-percent increase in rent in the third quarter.

In the next two quarters, rents are not expected to increase because historically these quarters are slow rental periods, according to Reis analysts. They projected that the rental vacancy rate will increase from the current level of 7.8 percent and surpass 8 percent in the middle of next year.

According to analysts, the home for rental vacancy rate has already surpassed the peak vacancy rate of 7.2 percent in 2004.

Page Mill was given 120 days to resolve its debt, based on documents filed by Wells Fargo with the Assessor’s Office of San Mateo County on September 25.

According to Wells Fargo spokesperson Elise Wilkinson, the bank has filed default notices on all of the apartment units and has warned Page Mill that unless it negotiates a new written agreement with Wells Fargo, all the apartment units will be foreclosed and sold off.

In September, a Superior Court Judge in San Mateo appointed David Wald as receiver and supervisor of the apartment buildings after Page Mill’s real estate management unit Woodland Park Management removed its staff from the complexes.

Wald hired Investors Property Services to manage the apartment units, partially addressing the concerns of tenants who have been worrying about the ownership of the house for rental units. Even before the foreclosure notices, tenant associations in properties operated by Page Mill throughout East Palo Alto have been filing complaints against Page Mill for raising their rents and for failing to maintain the apartment buildings.

Real estate analysts in the area said that Page Mill could negotiate a short sale, a loan-term extension or reduced interest rates, but some of them doubt the capability of Page Mill to raise the money to pay off its missed August payment.

Additionally, investors in multifamily properties in East Palo Alto have been long having difficulties because of the efforts of tenant associations and working-class families to control rents and maintain affordable housing throughout the city.

Investors who have huge plans of rehabilitating and improving apartment buildings and then raising rents are surprised to discover that they cannot just raise their rents without running into fierce opposition from the community.

For the November ballot, the city of East Palo Alto crafted a revised rent-control law to address loopholes in the current rent control law, but Page Mill was able to block the attempt.

Nonetheless, according to analysts, even if Page Mill has successfully blocked the planned revision of the rent control law, it may not be able to block the foreclosure proceedings by Wells Fargo and it may ultimately lose its power over house of rental units in the city.

Based on interviews, the block of apartment units on Mobley Lane has a history of troubled finances. Trilar Realty, which previously managed the property, said it stopped managing the property as soon as lenders foreclosed on the apartment units.

Some of the renters were more fortunate than other residents because they were notified by the owners before the foreclosure and they were given a couple of thousand dollars to move out of the properties. There were also some families which were told to stay and make their monthly payments to the new owners.

But for most of the renters, the foreclosures were becoming a nightmare because they are receiving eviction notices without any refunds of their security deposits or any financial assistance for moving out.

For those who have not received any kind of notice, uncertainty and anxiety have been filling up their nights and days because they do not know if they should continue paying their rent to the same entity, use up their security deposit or begin looking for another rental.

Adding to the woes of residents of the distressed homes for rental is the notice that electricity, water and garbage would soon be shut off even if not all of the renters have received eviction notices.

Despite the anxieties of eviction and lost security deposits, Hemet renters can take comfort from the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, which was signed by President Obama in May.

The federal law protects renters of housing units that have been foreclosed by banks. Under the law, renters have the right to remain in their rented houses for 90 days after foreclosure. Those with longer lease terms as spelled out in their lease contracts can stay through the rest of the term.

Based on foreclosure data, about one-third of foreclosed housing units in California are rental units. Under California law, lease contracts are cancelled by foreclosure and renters must be given 60 days to move out after foreclosure.

But under the federal law, lease contracts survive the foreclosure of homes for rental. However, they can be terminated if the renters are given a 90-day notice. For some California cities that prohibit foreclosure evictions, the federal law does not preempt these prohibitions.

Either way, there is always the possibility of failure, but if one has invested in a real estate investment firm, one can sue the firm if investments fail.

This is what two Houston, Texas real estate investors and their wives did. Prominent businessmen Monty Davis and Richard Bergmark and their wives sued Plainfield-based real estate investment firm Connolly Properties Inc. after the rental apartment complexes in which their money was invested began to face foreclosure and bankruptcy.

According to the breach of contract action, the Bergmarks and Davises invested a total of $3.15 million in six Connolly Properties apartment entities starting December 2006 up to January 2009. Under their investment contracts, each release of investment money would be used to acquire, own and operate a specific income-generating property.

Two of the apartment entities in which the Texas businessmen invested own apartment buildings in Watchung Gardens, Netherwood Village and Plainfield in Texas. The other four apartment entities own house rentals in Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit centered on two apartment investments that ultimately failed. The families said that they invested in 2008 a total of $850,000 in the Connolly Properties fund Marshall Woods Trust, which planned to acquire a 305-unit apartment building in Norristown, Pennsylvania.

The Bergmark couple also invested another $240,000 in the Connolly fund Hampshire Court Trust, which planned to acquire a 54-unit apartment building in Plainfield.

In April this year, the families said, Connolly Properties CEO David Connolly informed them that he will not pursue the Marshall Woods purchase but instead acquire a 182-unit building in Falls Township, Pennsylvania. When the planned purchase again failed, the families demanded a return of their investment money.

Furthermore, the families claimed that Connolly Properties has not been responding to their demands, but instead has informed them that their money has been used to buy another property. The families reiterated that this third investment was carried out without their consent.

The two families also claimed that Connolly Properties wrote them assuring them that all its house rentals and other apartment properties have no liens or foreclosure cases against them. They however found out through a newspaper report that a foreclosure action has been filed against Plainfield Apartments, one of their investment properties.

In fact, 50 percent of renters currently spend a minimum of 30 percent of their total income every month. Although this includes bills on utilities, it is still a very hefty price. This was according to an analysis that was conducted by the Associated Press. Worse, one every four renter spends more than half of their income to pay for their rental homes.

According to Sheila Crowley of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there would be more people who are living in rental homes to experience being homeless due to the inability to pay their rents. This is as prices of rents and utilities have continued to increase in the past years. Median rent increased by about 7 percent from 200 to 2007. This increase was so significant to renters, since income then also decreased by 7 percent.

Renters would find themselves spending too much on rent that it already affected how they lived. According to Cicely Dove, a director of family housing in Crossroads, renters would tend to sacrifice their needs such as important household items. Funds from the government to help renters have been in stagnant state since 2000. This was the time when rent started to rise, serving as useless. Also, the number of rental homes that are priced affordably has also been becoming fewer and fewer.

In the past years, around 3 million affordably-priced rental apartments were demolished to give way to condos or units that have higher prices. There had been a lot of missed laws and government funding that should have been helping renters.

Now, the economic recession has worsened the state of renters. After unemployment increased in the past months, renters received new burdens. Not only do they face the problem of paying for their rent, but also their landlords’ inability to pay home mortgage loans for their rental homes.

A lot of times, people instead choose to stay with their relatives and other people to lessen the rent that they have to pay. This raises concern about the quality of life in the country. In the future, a lot of people are hoping for better rates of rental homes, as well as more programs that would support tenants.

The meeting saw tenants of homes for rent and demonstrators who expressed their opposition to this law getting approved. The board which approved this, also known as the Rent Guidelines Board, was the one that authorized that rent be increased. More specifically, rents can increase by 3 percent on one-year leases on houses for rent, and 6 percent for two-year leases.

Last year, the approved set of increases was the highest since 1989. This was a 4.5 percent increase for one-year leases, and 8.5 percent for two-year leases. That meeting was disrupted by some tenants who protested the law to be approved.

According to board member Ronald S. Languadoc, the Americans are currently experiencing a severe recession that is why he proposed for the increase to be frozen. He further added that this year is not a year for rents to be increased.

In the weeks before the meeting was held, some officials joined together to call on others to have rent freeze across the country. This was actually one of the first times when the push for a freeze was able to gather momentum. The board however, has never approved a freeze since 1989. But the officials who were pushing for it were saying that it was justifiable by the current state of the economy.

According to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, he left the decision to the board. He released this statement before the board approved the rent increase. The result was a 5 to 4 vote. Chairman of the board Marvin Markus said that a rent freeze is really never going to happen.

This would affect a lot of residents in New York who are living in rental homes. However, another area or segment is the one represented by landlords. Whether they will benefit from the new law or not is now the question. According to Joseph Strasburg, Rent Stabilization Association president, the rent increases would result to everyone losing. There are no winners. Both tenants and landlords of rental homes would experience the negative effects of this move.

However, over the years, there has been an increase in the number of rental homes in the area. As more and more houses shift from being occupied by families to ones shared by classmates and colleagues, the city finds itself in an unhealthy living condition.

For instance, there had been more garbage in the area, unmaintained houses and lawns and porches. With this, the city is pushing for better balance between owner-occupied units and rental houses. In fact, some officials in the city are pushing for some regulations to be approved. They are currently looking at a program that would offer low-interest loans aimed at helping homeowners who have rental units near the campus. Financial incentives would also be given to people who would buy homes and live there permanently.

UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership would also provide a stricter enforcement of regulations. A proposal that has a budget worth $200,000 is under way. This could help in paying off rents for homes, and could also contribute to the improvement of some rental homes.

This move is not aimed at kicking out renters in the area. Instead, it is aimed at just balancing the occurrence of rental homes and of those occupied by families and the actual owners. Now, there are areas with two thirds of rental homes. Officials are aiming for a healthy balance, a 50-50 proportion.

City officials are also aiming to avoid a perception that there area is full of poorly maintained rental homes that are occupied by student ghettos. This is a trend that now concerns not only officials, but also homeowners in the area.

The proposal is expected to be acted upon by the City Council as soon as possible. There are a lot of benefits for the city once this plan is approved. Outward image is a very important factor for a city, and a wrong perspective of the city would have a lot of negative effects on the residents.