Poll: The rising cost of rent

Rents are increasing across Ulster County.

Data from the county’s annual housing affordability survey in 2017, the last available year, show that average rents in Ulster County have risen by 55.8 percent since 2002, far outpacing wage increases. The survey also showed that more than half of Ulster County renters are “housing cost-burdened,” meaning that they pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing. The study found that 55.1 percent of county residents qualified as rent-burdened while nearly 30 percent spent more than half of their income on rent placing them in the category of “severely cost-burdened.”

As a result, some local residents have called for government action. In Kingston, that is expected to take the form of rent-control legislation, which allow rents to be capped at a cost in line with what local people can afford, protecting residents from being displaced due to a hot housing market. But opponents of rent control say it distorts the market, driving up costs of unregulated units, chilling the market for new construction and causing landlords to neglect their properties due to lack of profits and competition.

Read more coverage of this issue. 

What do you think?

What should be done about rising rents in Ulster County?

There are 10 comments

  1. Mark Hoffstatter

    The property taxes for the same period have risen 400%.
    A property that was taxed $250 in 2002 is now paying $1000 in property taxes PER MONTH.
    The only way to keep rents reasonable is to keep property taxes from forcing owners to raise rents
    (or sell and move out).

  2. JR

    Rent to a tenant is the same as property taxes are to the homeowner. How many homeowners are ” severely cost burdened” due to rising property taxes? As property taxes go up rents must go up. Pretty simple, Something needs to be done about constantly rising property taxes. Stop the out of control spending in state and local government.

  3. Jp

    Its NY……its a democrat state, and democrat run states are some of the most high taxed states in the Union, look it up…..taxes are outrageous in NY, everyone votes for the same mayor, or governor, or representative. What do you expect!

    1. Janet

      Actually, your statement is not true at this moment and time.

      NY State, Texas, and California all share the highest residential tax burden in the nation as of 2019; and the paper trail ties directly to the so-called “tax break” Trump threw at us; it resulted in a direct rise in the tax burden on property owners in all 3 states.

      This from a governmet report in Trump’s own administration.
      It is fact, not opinion.

      1. JR

        You are not correct Janet. The problem is that property taxes in NY &CA, were too high to begin with. If that were not the case Trump’s tax plan would not affect us so much. Trump did not increase our property taxes. They were going up way before he came along. States like NY and CA need to find other ways to fund spending other than property tax revenue but the real solution is to cut spending in these states. Democrats will never do that.

      2. wowjustwow

        Trump’s tax plan didn’t raise property or state income taxes. It capped the amount one could deduct from their federal taxes to lower gross income subjected to higher marginal income tax rates. The logic is that average income earners shouldn’t be subsidizing the wealthy who can afford mansions or beach houses with high property taxes. Only in very progressive states will a house assessed at $250,000 carry a combined property and school tax burden of $6,000, $7,000 or higher. Add to that a couple of thousand in state taxes and you reach the $10,000 cap. Is it right that the wealthy pay more in taxes through this program? Yes. Did Trump set out to punish CA and NY. Oh yeah.

    2. Sd

      NYS deserves everything NYC and Albany has voted for it, especially the governor’s seat. At least there’s the 2% tax cap on already obscene taxes, that should make everyone have warm fuzzies.

  4. marcus

    The city of Kingston as of today has proposals from developers that put 177 new rental units within the city boundaries, if and only if, the city planning board would just approve them. Unfortunately, the activist community here is fighting against 134 of those units, and I suspect once the additional plan for 43 new units hits the review board those same activists will crawl out of the woodwork again to argue against them for all kinds of bizarre reasons, and through their own actions be the sole reason new housing is not being built in Kingston. You gotta build it folks, or you are the one creating the supply problem. It’s plain and simple.

  5. M

    Tooo bad the 1,658 residential units at Kingston landing got squashed,
    those would encourage the sale of current housing units at lower prices.

    1. Susan

      We now have a park instead. High-tax states are usually the engines of this nation’s economy–more jobs and more people working–and without them, the economy in this country would be in the doldrums. Be glad you live in one, then question why our taxes should be subsidizing places like Mitch McConnell’s State of Kentucky?

Comments are closed.