« Affordable Housing Watch: 1247 Flatbush Avenue Wednesday Links »

May 29, 2007

House of the Day: 227 Berkeley Place

We were wondering why the price tag on this Berkeley Place house was only $2,799,000. Then we got to the part in the description about the single rent ~~controlled~~ stabilized tenant in a studio on the top floor. Losing the half-floor of space is less of a bummer than the fact that you have to keep the entire stairwell public. Then again, that's why this place (which has some pretty kick-ass plaster and woodwork) isn't priced in the mid-threes. It's a tricky situation though: Most folks with $2.8 million to spend don't want to be bothered with this kind of thing. Clearly the tenant doesn't want to bought out or the current owners would have done so before putting the house on the market.
277 Berkeley Place [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
Photo by Kate Leonova for Property Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1246

Comments

How did apartments in less than 6 unit buildings ever get rent controlled in the first place?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 1:35 PM

Why do people to continue to use Corcoran. They are sooo awful. The one thing I love about Bklyn is the human element - Granted you can get your highest price as a seller and still maintain some sort of Human side to you - Corcoran doesnt. Neither does this said broker. I just wish they would get their act together - Sorry to be such a downer.

Posted by: WHY at May 29, 2007 1:52 PM

Maybe the building had two apartments on every floor, back when the current owner bought it. In that case it would be 8 apartments total. These big 4-story Park Slope houses are rabbits warrens of apartments above the owner's duplex. And often the owner's duplex is chopped up funny. You never see pictures of the rental apartments on these types of listings either, because most of the time they look like crap. Really run down by longtime tenants who don't do any repairs or renovations. Why not just buy a 2 or 3 story single family in Park Slope for a million dollars less?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 1:58 PM

hey corcoran...if you're reading this...you might want to update your photo of the place as there are now leaves on the trees...

might make things seem more current.

this is one of the most beautiful blocks in all of park slope, in my opinion.

Posted by: anon at May 29, 2007 1:59 PM

Many posters on this blog refuse to admit that there can be such a thing as a rent control ot regulated tenant in a rowhouse. Some of my past postings have been called moronic and uninformed because I recounted stories about renters who wil not be moved. Well here is the classic situation of a renter, with keys to your front door of course, who will co-habitate with you and your family if you buy his 2.8 million dollar house. Only in New York.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 2:12 PM

The ad copy says the tenant is rent-stabilized, not rent controlled as Brownstoner says- definitely a difference.

Also, the RE agent states that, as an option, the house may be used as a one-family, but how is that possible if you can't easily get the tenant out? (And from what I understand, it can be almost impossible or prohibitively expensive to do so in these cases.)

Can the agent advertise the house this way?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 2:14 PM

anyone with the funds and motivation to buy a house like this will do their own research re: the tenant situation and not rely on the broker's representations.

Posted by: z at May 29, 2007 2:18 PM

It does say 'stabilized' in the listing. That would mean that there's a process to take the building over as a one family. If that's not the buyers intention, then they're stuck with a bunch of little apartments, and one of them will be stabilized. If the other three are not, then it looks like they could still take the duplex and pay for some of the mortgage. Seems like a headache of rent collection though.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 2:30 PM

There are some differences between rent-control and rent-regulated tenants, but not in terms of getting them out. Either way, you are stuck with them for life unless you can buy them out, which seems unlikely in this case.
I would wager that the current family is selling the building because of the tenant.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 2:32 PM

"We were wondering why the price tag on this Berkeley Place house was only $2,799,000"
Well, I can't live in New Your anymore.
I hate this Website.

Posted by: Who Knows at May 29, 2007 2:38 PM

Another thing about rent-regulated tenants, they can stop paying rent at any time due to any reason, ie: the window sticks, the plaster is blistered,
the water is not hot enough, the insect screen is torn. I'm not kidding. Some of these characters who know how to play the system, have not paid rent in years. It is a peculiar system. Don't llet realtors minimize the heartache and trouble that it will entail. I am speaking from bitter experience.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 2:39 PM

Fran is back - ignore.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 2:39 PM

only 2799.....2x lol

Posted by: anon at May 29, 2007 2:42 PM

if you all knew anything about brooklyn real estate and especially this part of the historic district of park slope that is less than 2 blocks to grand army plaza and the 2/3 train, prospect park, the q train, all the shopping, restaurants on 7th and 5th avenues, you would know that 2.7 million is indeed a good price on a house like this.

laughing at that number means you really don't follow whats going on with real estate at all. it would be similar to laughing that there are 2 million dollar homes for sale in southampton.

really not super funny. or surprising in the least.

Posted by: anon at May 29, 2007 2:51 PM

this house would cost easily 5-6 million dollars a few stops away in manhattan.

even with the tenant/s.

Posted by: anonymous at May 29, 2007 2:53 PM

I went to this open house. The broker was less than forthcoming about the rent-controlled (not stabilized)situation, and the owner's duplex is really strange. And, you couldn't see any of the other units other than the owner's. The broker was also borderline nasty to people who were there as it got close to the open house's end. $10 says the tenant is a huge nightmare who will not be bought out and refuses to pay the rent if the sun doesn't shine correctly that day.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 2:58 PM

Anon 2:58
Fran, if you are so against rent control and stabilization, with numerouse, inaccurate, and/or wild assumptions, why are you looking at this house?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 3:03 PM

that's interesting. you must have gone to a different open house than i did.

owners duplex is lovely. beautiful details. and the tenant is indeed stabilized, not controlled.

seems you must be mistaken about the address of the place you looked at.

;-)

Posted by: anonymous at May 29, 2007 3:04 PM

3:04:

Nah, same open house, just difference in opinion. there were def. some nice details, but the kitchen to outdoor space flow was strange, and I found the garden floor to be claustrophobic.
Coulda sworn Ms. nasty-pants said controlled, but I could be wrong...either one would be a deal-breaker for me.
gorgeous block and beautiful house overall, though.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 3:10 PM

Doesn't $2.799 sound a bit high for this house? I recall that a similar house on St. John's between 7th and 8th sold for about $2.5 or $2.4 within the last month or so. It was set up as a triplex with garden rental and presumably did not have the rent stabilized tenant complication.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 3:19 PM

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 3:20 PM

I did not see the house, but live in PS. My guess is that the stabilized apt is probably pretty close to market rent anyhow (as many of the stabilized apts in PS are), and if the owner wanted to convert the entire building to single-family, they probably could after a couple of years of court proceedings under the guise that they need the apt for themselves. In general, small-building live-in owners are given more leeway on evictions than larger professional landlords. The exception being if the tenant is elderly or disabled (then nothing save death can get them out).

I think the assumption that the RS tenant is a problem tenant is premature. There are 4 tenant-occupied studios in the building - one of them happens to be stabilized.

IMO, the huge price discount reflects a couple of issues:

1) With 4 units, this looks and feels more like an investment property than an owner-occupied situation. Invmnt prop's always go for less in this mkt - its a different buyer mindset.

2) Also, with 4-units, I bet taxes are hefty, as this will fall into a very different property tax code than 1-2 fam homes.

3) In order to convert to a suitable 1-2 fam home, a substantial level of renovation would be required. This adds to the headache factor.

4) And last, but not least, the hassle required to deal with a stabilized tenant, whether friendly or not, places a significant discount on the property.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 3:20 PM

Thank you 3:20, very well done.
The property is being sold as a mutiple dwelling, the rent roll is probably not bad. Mystery solved.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 3:33 PM

2:51 -- I own in Windsor & enjoy this site tremendously. However, there are times when I look at the prices on this site and can't help feeling ill when I see "we think this house is a steal" and the steal price is 2M ++. I **think** that's what 2:38 was saying.

**Sigh** On the one hand, it's great for Brooklyn on the one hand, but on the other side, it's only good for a certain kind of Brooklyn and that's just kinda sad.

Posted by: jdhs 91 at May 29, 2007 3:48 PM

Fact: If the rent stabilized tenant is over 62, you can't get rid of them, even if you're going to use the entire house as your own residence. So, get used to your own personal bum living upstairs . . . Stinky ain't going nowhere!

I can't believe how high prices are for townhouses in Brooklyn. I purchased 20 unit multifamily apartment buildings in prime Manhattan just ten years ago for way less than single family houses in Brooklyn go for today.

I bought because the cap rates made sense. Why the hell would anyone pay current prices? They're totally nuts.
The only reason to buy in Brooklyn
today is if you're rich and don't give a damn.

You folks are dreaming if you think prices like these will hold up for the next couple years. There's no justification for this malarky other than rich folks in finance dumping their loot so they can brag to their friends about their flower gardens, moldings, and sunrooms.

Posted by: Jake the Snake at May 29, 2007 3:53 PM

...other than rich folks in finance dumping their loot so they can brag to their friends about their flower gardens, moldings, and sunrooms.

huh, as opposed to rich people bragging about their 20 unit buildings in Manhattan and their brilliant business acumen on cap rates on blogs.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 4:19 PM

Buying a luxury home at this price with a protected tenant upstairs certainly makes no sense. However, someone could buy it as a small apatment building for the income stream. Perhaps in five or more years the rent-protected tenant could die, at which time the place could be resold as a single family or as whatever brings in the most.
As long as the financial markets continue to do very well, prices for the best blocks will continue to be incredibly high.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 4:19 PM

love you 4:19. the first one.

apparently jake hasn't come out of his hole in the last 10 years or he'd realize that indeed prices have risen in brooklyn, and no, one does not need work in finance to purchase a house.

why some people read and comment on this site when they either know nothing of what they speak about or have no seeming interest in brownstone brooklyn is beyond me.

Posted by: anon at May 29, 2007 4:32 PM

3:48 ... it seems you are blaming "this site" for the prices of the properties they write about. don't blame brownstoner or the people who post on the site. they are just commenting on what "is" ... not what you think should be.

Posted by: anon. at May 29, 2007 4:49 PM

I happen to live in a rent-stabilized apt. a couple buildings down from that one. My building is the crappiest building on the block, but I have spent a lot of money fixing up my apt. to my tastes. Everyone else is rent stabilized in my building (2 women for over 45 years) and not one of us are "stinky bums" who don't pay our rent when the sun doesn't shine. All of our apts. are kept up by ourselves (there is no maintenance man here) and are tidy and clean. The rent-stabilized tenants in PS have been here for a long time, creating a genuine sense of community in a nabe that is now changing quickly with the influx of quick money from Manhattan & the desire for the nouveau riche to live in a fantasy world populated only by themselves. It should be a hassle to "get rid of" or to "wait for us to die" We have made this neighborhood desirable for you!

Posted by: Berkeley Place Girl at May 29, 2007 5:02 PM

do you live in the apt. with the door that looks like it's about to fall off its hinges with a burn mark on it or something?

should definitely get your landlord to replace it. it's an eyesore.

as for the rest, i hope you are able to stay in the hood, and i agree that we should all be more respectful of those that made this neighborhood such a great place to live.

anyone have anything NICE to say about the house/location or just the normal bitter crap?

Posted by: anonymous at May 29, 2007 5:07 PM

4:49:

I think I wrote that I enjoy this site tremendously and don't believe I indicated at all that BrownStoner sets the prices. I did say that the reported prices made me ill and a bit sad sometimes. I enjoy the NY Times. The articles make me ill and a bit sad, but I don't blame the reporters, it's just how things are.

Posted by: jdhs 91 at May 29, 2007 5:13 PM

4:19, Exactly how much of an income stream do you expect to get from this building. I can't see buying this for $2.8 and having to share it with a tenant.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 5:14 PM

Most agree that the worst possible rent-protected tenants are in the Upper West Side, next worst: Greenwich Village, next Worst: Brooklyn Heights.
Maybe the tenants in Park Slope are nicer. Don't know. But its true that you will stay in your apartments until you die, so people who buy have to make a rough judgement about lifespan.
That's just the way it goes.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 5:14 PM

Just for the record:
renters are fine, but it is the folks who have mortgaged their lives and poured their all into the purchase, restoration, and upkeep of these old houses who deserve the credit. Renters are primarily interested in keeping their rent as low as possible regardless of what imporvements or repairs the building may need. I don't buy the "we made it good for you" arguement. You mande it as cheap as possible for yourselves and in so doing you cheated yourselves of the opportunity to buy when the prices were low because you had rent protection. A shame.
By the way congratulations that you keep your apartments tidy and clean, what do you want a girl scout medal?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 5:20 PM

It seems our brave pioneering brownstone homeowners are morphing into Gordon Gekkos. Lets look at basics. The city instituted rent control and stabiliziation because of public policy decisions. There is some logic behind this, though there is always the 'welfare queen' of renters, the stinky bum that the landlord can always hold up. On the other hand, ask people what they associate with the word 'landlord' and it probably isn't Mother Theresa. It is obvious from reading this board that there are new, amateur, seasoned and professional landlords who post here, but everyone should realize that you are investing in a highly regulated industry. Thats just the way it is, so don't whine. Also there are good reasons for it being regulated - people die buildings that collapse, or don't have smoke detectors, etc. Anyway, if the regulations isn't to your taste, try putting your money in a hedge fund or overseas, whatever

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 5:21 PM

Well, while we are being nasty -- some of us, anyway -- I will add that I had a run-in with that broker a few years ago, and it was not pleasant.

Posted by: anon at May 29, 2007 5:24 PM

4:32pm,

I didn't say only people in finance "can afford" Brownstones in Brooklyn.

I said it only "makes sense" for such rich folks to pay millions for houses in Brooklyn.

VP's and MD's at big banks won't be ruined when this over-hyped market eventually crashes, but artists, teachers, engineers, etc., people with all their eggs in one basket, will be destroyed.

For the record, the same holds for everywhere else in NYC that townhouses cost millions, including Soho, where I happen to live.

I like this site because I enjoy following the market and enjoy renovating old buildings. You don't have to live in Brooklyn to have such interests.

4:19pm,

Good point.

Posted by: Jake the Snake at May 29, 2007 5:28 PM

THAT BROKER is not a particulary warm and fuzzy person. wouldn't have cocktails with her or buy a home from her.

Posted by: EM at May 29, 2007 5:39 PM

Mr. B, I'm just curious if people recognize you when you're out & if so, are they as rude to you in person as they can be on this blog?! You must have some thick skin!

And yes, "Anonymous" at 5:20, feel free to leave my medal on the stoop of the most dilapidated brownstone on Berkeley between 7th & 8th. You know, the one that has the stank odor of damp one-hundred dollar bills tucked away under mattresses and of the rotting flesh of rent stabilized mooches slowly decomposing in our dank $975 studios ruining everything on purpose for you wannabe single-home dwellers.

The paint is chipping off the front door and the bottom hinge is loose, but a medal should spruce things up a bit for the property. Thanks, sweetie!

Posted by: Berkeley Place girl at May 29, 2007 5:46 PM

Psst - Brownstoner: the address is 227 Berkeley, not 277. You've got it right in your P*Shark link, but wrong in everywhere else.

Posted by: EJ at May 29, 2007 5:47 PM

Berkeley girl, you said it yourself, you live in the worst building on the block. Why? because there are 4 regulated tenants, making the building, in one of the finest blocks in Brooklyn, a mini-slum. You seem proud of this.
But most r-c/r renters take pride in the decrepitude of their buildings. it's like a weird badge of honor. It's so "old NY".
Have you ever heard 2 rc tenants boasting about who has the worst conditions in their apartments? Hillarious. Boasting about who is the biggest victim.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 7:33 PM

I am "boasting" that rent regulated tenants take enough pride in our building that we would never let our apartments resemble the facade of the building. Each apartment is not a mini-slum because we can control our own living space. I have no control/authority to replace the front door although we have all reported it as it is an obvious security issue. The problem is not always RC tenants, sometimes it is complacent landlords who have outright owned a building for 30+ years.
And, fyi, I got the apt. over the phone, long-distance from Turkey - had no idea it was RC & no idea of its "decreptitude" but have stayed for 2+ years because of the artists & wonderful BK librarian who have lived here for over 40 years & can tell great stories about the nabe over the years.

Maybe you should have an actual conversation with a renter sometime?

Posted by: BP Girl at May 29, 2007 7:55 PM

"The broker was also borderline nasty to people who were there as it got close to the open house's end."
Ever think that maybe the broker had another open house to get to? That is why she needed to get the people out that show up when it ends??

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 8:00 PM

eh, RC should actually be RS. I don't know what rent control is, my building is rent stabilized.

Posted by: BP girl at May 29, 2007 8:01 PM

rent control, rent stabilization, they are the same basic thing. it is rent protection that gives renters weird psuedo-ownership rights to a building tha they do not own. both divorce the rent charged with the costs of actually running a building. bureaucrats set the rents not the market -a sure recipe for disaster.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 8:30 PM

Interesting about the broker... I dealt with her, albeit very briefly, at another open house a few months back and thought she was extremely frosty... And we could easily have afforded the home she was peddling.... But didn't want to deal with her.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 8:53 PM

so back to the front door, bp girl. have you guys exhausted all possible avenues to get it fixed cause it looks REALLY bad!!!!

a new door would really spruce up the outside and not make the entire building stand out as the lone slum on the block.

Posted by: anon at May 29, 2007 9:01 PM

I can't imagine a landlord in North PS having more citations than him. He has been brought to court by two tenants (not me) several times. The ceilings are collapsing in the basement apartments, those tenants have had several building inspectors come over. Perhaps if other neighbors started accosting him on the street, or leaving him notes, he would be shamed into doing it ... I am told that the doors & paint are the same from 40 years ago, and it shows.

I am not meaning to turn this into about the brownstone I live in, it is just physically repulsive to read comments by others figuring out how old/how almost dead a human being (my neighbor!) is. It is gross, and I don't care how much money it will save you if the person takes a "buyout" from where they have lived for decades or dies in their RS apartment in 5 years vs. 10 years or whatever. When I close my laptop after typing this - I will never be back to this blog.

Counting down the minutes/days/years of a persons life on a blog & defending it as an equation to be plugged into the business/real estate transaction is repugnant and ghoulish. I don't want that kind of person in this neighborhood, they would be more out of place and unwanted here than us RS tenants.

Posted by: Berkely Place girl at May 29, 2007 9:24 PM

Anon 8:30--Read the thread. There is a distinct difference between RC and RS. RC is an older set of laws, and it's much harder to evict if someone is RC. And someone under RC at this point is more likely to be elderly, which is a whole separate can of worms.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 9:25 PM

BPG at 9:24--RU for real? You suddenly spelled your own street name incorrectly.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 9:29 PM

BPG,

If you don't like your landlord, move out.

Go back to Turkey.

Why does this country owe you a subsidized apartment?

What makes you so special?

Posted by: Herb Ert at May 29, 2007 9:47 PM

9:29, alas, she cannot answer, for she has closed her laptop and will never be back on this blog.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 9:52 PM

Having a good and gracious broker is important. Other brokers from competing firms do not want to deal with a broker who has a bad reputation in dealing with people. The house was on the market a year ago with Brown Harris Stevens and got offers considerably less. House has high taxes, units are not separately metered for electric and the duplex is a little weird with a very small kitchen. The upper unit is a big problem.. Can't get the guy out.. All those little aparts. make conversion to a one or two family difficult. If it was priced at $2.5 it might garner interest.

Posted by: Brownstone Broker at May 29, 2007 10:16 PM

maybe if bp girl's apt was not regulated, the landlord could afford to fix up the building? no, i guess that's the free market at work, and no free ride for girls like berkely girl. i guess the world owes them a handout and we must all live with the squalid condition of the building. i wish i could afford a laptop like berkely girl, but alas i don't live in a subsidized apartment

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 10:32 PM

not that i believe i'll change anyone's mind, but neither rent control nor rent stabilization are subsidized housing. 421a tax abatements to build luxury condos are subsidized housing. rent control and rent stabilization are state laws that have helped many people maintain a stable existence in what has become one of the most expensive cities in the world.

i get really tired of reading nasty, bitter, sarcastic posts about how rent rgulations are evil. the next time this subject comes up on Brownstoner, i'd like to read something constructive--and not just "abolish rent regulation so that everyone will pay $1500/m for a studio (like i do)"--about other ways to ensure there's some affordable housing left in NYC.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2007 11:26 PM

I can only hope that the nastiest of the comments directed towards Berkeley Girl, and rent stabilized/control tenants in general, has been by one of our rabble rousing trolls, or just some awful, unhappy person who just needs to spew venom.

I fail to see how any tenant, rent controlled/stabilized or otherwise, is responsible for the facade of the building they live in - that one is solely on the landlord. The fact that the tenants have complained to authorities numerous times, is in no way a reflection on them, if he chooses to ignore the city and his own tenants. It is nonsense that the door remains in the condition it is in because the landlord is not getting market rate rents.

Berkeley Girl is correct in that she and many other old time renters helped bring Park Slope back, as did the homeowners who bought brownstones and renovated them. This is true in every old neighborhood in the city. This is New York City, it always has, and always will, depend on renters. 98% of the people on this blog have been renters at some point in their lives. Since when did they become the scum of the earth? How many brownstone owners are also landlords, because they need the money to pay the bills? Renters have saved our butts, and enabled most of us to be able to afford these houses. Where does this bourgois snobbiness and contempt for renters come from? And where is our human compassion for the elderly and infirm? Should they be tossed into the street because some hedge funder wants an exercise room? What kind of people are we?

Berkeley Girl, if you are still here, not all of us are the same as the a&%holes who have seen fit to spew on this thread. What a disappointment!

Posted by: Preservationista at May 30, 2007 12:33 AM

"Other brokers from competing firms do not want to deal with a broker who has a bad reputation in dealing with people."

Huh? Yeah, if the buyers wants the house and they want to make as ell theyw ill. I don't want a broker who is is scared of another borker. If I want the house, I, and my broker, better deal with the "nasty" listing broker. Its NYC real estate, deal with it.

Posted by: William at May 30, 2007 2:14 AM

What a bunch of nonsense. If the city regulates rents in certain buildings, the buildings will end up being managed by landlords who cannot afford to fix the buildings. To the people who blame the landlord, you have a limited understanding of economics. And if you think rent regulation primarily benefits the elderly and infirm, you have a limited understanding of new york city real estate.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 6:47 AM

Renter subsidy of homeowners is mortgage interest deduction and r.e. tax deduction. So quit whining about renters.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 9:58 AM

Subsidized housing is housing that is subsidized by some entity. Rent stabilized tenants are subsidized firstly by the landlord, and secondly by the millions of New Yorkers who aren't lucky enough to have a rent stabilized apartment.

All the 20 somethings living in shared apartments directly subsidize deadbeat rent stabilized tenants subsisting on the public dime. They pay higher prices because these tenants don't pay their fair share.

A huge number of rent regulated tenants barely pay their fair share of energy usage and real estate taxes. Many barely pay enough to pay a sanitation citation when they leave their garbage on the street on days other than the designated collection day.

And Anon 6:47 is correct - the dilapidation of many NYC apartment buildings is directly the result of rent stabilization. Landlords simply do not have the money to make meaningful repairs or improvements, and spend only enough to maintain the property.

At this point in time, with record increases in energy prices, we may again reach a point like in the 1970s where landlords simply walk away from buildings.

As for you Preservationista, the hatred of rent regulated tenants is twofold: The lives of young people in NYC are made unnecessarily difficult by the program. Further, for anyone who loves beautiful architecture, rent stabilization has made the construction of new housing difficult, and has directly created our current market of nearly no vacancy in neighborhoods close to Manhattan. If it were not for rent regulations, new apartment buildings would be easier to construct, and existing ones could be marketed at higher rents. Market demand could eventually force landlords to improve their buildings, if they actually had to compete for tenants.

Right now, people will take whatever they can get, if they are lucky enough to even find a vacant apartment.

Rent ceiling regulations create a divisive world in this city, and as the city becomes more prosperous, the rebellion of the people against this oppressive system will only increase.

Posted by: Eryximachus at May 30, 2007 10:09 AM

Eryximachus, you always manage to make utter nonsense sound reasonable, because you phrase it well. However, you, and those who agree with you, have taken the existence of a few deadbeats and abusers of the system and created from them, an entire world view which does not depend on fact. I would be the first to concede that the rent regulations in this city are antiquated and need to be redone. However, to say that rent regulated tenants have made cheap housing impossible for all of the apartment sharing 20 somethings, shows that you are mainly whining because you can't get a swanky apartment by yourself, even with your 6 figure salary, which you haved bragged about in the past. I hardly think you are overly concerned with the housing needs of many New Yorkers.

I'm waiting for the proof and statistics that show that rent stablilized people litter more than others, especially in front of their own buildings, especially when I see men in 3 piece suits dropping candy wrappers in the street as often as anyone else.

I concede that many landlords cannot improve their buildings because they can't afford it, although that really is not a good enough excuse to let Berkeley Place Girl's landlord off the hook. There is can't fix it, and won't fix it, and fixing a door is not the same as installing new windows in the building. Just as there are bad tenants, there are scores of bad landlords. Housing court leans towards the tenants for a reason.

Finally, the absurd notion that rent stabilization ruins the lives of young renters just makes me cry. You poor things! I frankly have more compassion for an 80 year old pensioner being frozen out of his apartment by a landlord who wants the space.

As someone who is concerned with preservation, I fail to see your correlation between building new buildings and historic preservation. Aren't you the one who is always railing against any kind of preservation, because it hinders the ability of developers to build, build, build? You can't change your stripes overnight in an attempt to win an argument by trying to drum up sympathy for the plight of displaced hipsters who think they should be enjoying the apartments of the subsidised, especially in the name of preservation. MOST of the people in subsidized housing are there because they need help. The system needs fixing, but it's there for a reason.

Posted by: Preservationista at May 30, 2007 11:09 AM

Once again the sheer nastiness of putative landlords is overwhelming. I guess that anonymity allows this kind of venom. Calling renters "stinky" saying "get rid of them," (Tenant-Motel, anyone?) etc makes me wonder if any of these unhappy people were 1) ever once renters 2) have any compassion for those less well-off than themselves 3) just plain entitled and arrogant?

Since I am a landlord myself, I'd like to say that I'm grateful for my tenants rent which lets me afford my brownstone. I have no prolems "sharing my (precious) space".

Posted by: anon at May 30, 2007 11:11 AM

Sorry,
I do think rent control is evil. I have thought so for years. It is detrimental on several different levels.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 11:30 AM

Preservationista, you stereotype as much as Eryximachus. Not all young people are six-figure hipsters, any more than all rent-subsidized tenants are rich deadbeats. Why are they less deserving of sympathy than the 80-year-old pensioner who benefited from rent protections as an old man, a middle-aged man and a young man--a cumulative lifetime benefit, most likely, of hundreds of thousands, which these younger people are unlikely ever to get?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 12:21 PM

please. this broker is one of the best in the industry and clearly the go to park slope townhouse broker

This house is just overpriced.

Posted by: cobble at May 30, 2007 12:30 PM

please. this broker is one of the best in the industry and clearly the go to park slope townhouse broker

This house is just overpriced.

Posted by: cobble at May 30, 2007 12:30 PM

Please, most RS buildings have been owned by the same people for years and are either paid for or at least did not cost the millions they would go for now. The landlords are making, not losing money.

Also - while we talk about subsidies - why is it no one brings up the fact that NYC property taxes are extremely low compared to the surrounding areas.
So all you crazy home owners are getting a break to.

Posted by: Anon at May 30, 2007 12:34 PM

My husband and I rent a two bedroom apartment in the East Village. We live in a 100 year old tenament buiding that houses a mix of RC, RS and "market rate" apartments. We pay market rate.

One argument for rent stabilization is that without it landlords can raise rents as much as they want from year to year. Our rent just skyrocketed $700.00 a month, which were given 15 days notice to accept or get out. Our friends across the city have seen their rents increase by $500.00+ as well. What happens to people who can't afford such a large and unexpected monthly dent in their budget? We're lucky, we could afford to stay if we had to, but we're able to buy so we're getting out.

RC and RS apartments keep neighborhoods diverse and protect people who need a little extra help from being displaced. The RC and RS tenants in our building are wonderful, courteous people who typically have the tidiest apartments, they watch over common spaces and ride the shady landlord to fix the problems in our building.

Most of the market rate tenants come and go. We've seen the apartment across the hall turn over four times in three years. Many of them don't seem to care about the building or the neighborhood, they leave their trash in the hallways, throw loud parties and expect somebody else to make a call when there is a serious problem in the building.

Some of the comments in this thread are just appalling and so representative of the Monopoly money mindset in the NYC real estate market. NYC is going to be great when it's all rich people and chain stores as far as the eye can see!

Posted by: Goldrush Yuppie at May 30, 2007 1:16 PM

I don't know that people here have a problem with RS apartments in general. It's about how much to pay for this house that contains RS apartments. These houses are huge investments; it's a valid concern. It's strange that what is a private home can have a RS apartment in it, IMO. Most cities put such apartments only in large developments.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 1:51 PM

I'm generally against rent stabilization, but: homeowners have a legal mechanism in place to protect them from sudden inflation too--the cap on property tax increases. If you support getting rid of rent stabilization, you should also support having your property tax raised immediately to reflect the assessed value. Fair's fair.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 1:51 PM

12:21pm, people refer to Eryximachus as a 6-figure hipster because he often posts on this blog site and has stated before he makes 6 figures and has provided details about himself.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 1:56 PM

and he's in his late 20's don't forget.

whip out the violins....

talk about entitled youth.

Posted by: anon at May 30, 2007 2:21 PM

Who cares if E. makes 6 figures? That doesn't make the concerns of other young renters any more or less legitimate.

Anyway, there's plenty of entitlement to go around in NYC. That doesn't make it any more defensible for one group to claim an entitlement to a benefit that others, maybe even more needy, can't access.

If there are, say, 100,000 rent-stab apartments in NYC, then why not set the income threshold so that only the poorest 100,000 households qualify? Means-test it, and enforce it.

Anything else means that one set of have-nots is paying more so that another group (some needy, some not as much) can pay less.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 3:00 PM

Posted by: Anon at May 30, 2007 12:34 PM

Ever heard of NYC income tax. They don't have that in the surrounding areas, hence they finance with higher property taxes.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 5:32 PM

park slope liberals
ugh

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 7:09 PM

The posters here have no idea what they're talking about. Every one of my rent regulated tenants could afford a market rate apartment. If you think defending rent regulation protects lower income people wake up and look around.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 9:34 PM

I won't comment on the pros and cons of rent stabilization/rent control since I'm neither a landlord or a RC or RS so I have no first hand experience to draw from or have any real formed opinion on the matter but I do know when something sounds ridiculous enough for me to point out and its this comment,

" Perhaps in five or more years the rent-protected tenant could die"

How awful does that sound? I can't say any property is worth someone's life or wishing someone would die.

Posted by: joe at May 31, 2007 1:51 AM

"All the 20 somethings living in shared apartments directly subsidize deadbeat rent stabilized tenants subsisting on the public dime. They pay higher prices because these tenants don't pay their fair share."

Please let me catch my breath- I laughed so hard. Unfortunately, Eryximachus, it's hard to take you seriously because your thinking process is so stunted. Whatever makes you think a landlord or a developer is going to desist from squeezing every last dollar out of their investment, rs/rc or not? Do you even know the barest minimum about market economics? Rs/rc tenants made the construction of new Housing difficult? Sorry, Ex but have you looked around lately?

Developers are building like crazy, charging insane prices- do you think scarano or ratner sets their prices based on rent controlled or stabilized tenants? Lawd! What are you using for brains? You obviously think every new apartment is or sold long before the building is up- but the reality is, places are sitting empty,(hey, idea!- you could get your 20-something 6 figure ass into one of those)but new condo and co op buldings are changing to rentals and still struggling to find tenants.

it's pretty obvious you hate renters, especially rs/rc's. Well I was one for many many years- still rent actually. In fact NYC is filled with renters and the landlords who need them to stay in business. Or keep their newly purchased brownstones but want to overcharge a tenant so they won't have to make their own mortagae payments. Now let me just say this- I have had 2 incredible landlords. They take care of their buildings and go out of their way to do the right thing by tenants. And in general they get good tenants who care about their apartments. Its called karma. Perhaps the reason you can't seem to find a place is because of your personality?

Ex has a lot of issues, lack of logic being the worst or them. When you have worked long and hard and paid as much in taxes as someone in an rc/rs apartment who has worked for 40 years, then you can complain.

Until then, learn how to wipe your own butt, clean up after yourself and get a grip. Life is not about you- I know its a shock. Just because you're 20 whatever, no one owes you anything. You haven't contributed a damn thing in this life yet, so where do you get off thinking people 30 and up owe you a cheap place to live or a free lunch? And while you're thinking about all this (sure- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), learn a little more about rc/rs. No one subsidized my rent. No one. Certainly not you. But my landlord got lots of tax breaks and benefits. So scoot off sweetie- when you've learned enough to post with the big kids come back and say something intelligent.

Posted by: resident of at May 31, 2007 11:27 AM

I don't work for the same firm as this broker. And I don't have a personal or business relationship with her of any kind. But I want to encourage all brokers and agents on this blog to not fall in to the trap of complaining about other agents. It is pretty petty. And think about it, if you are an agent who gets listings, it very well could be you the next time that people are talking about. Let's all rise above this forum's low tone folks and set a better standard for the industry. You really just make us all look bad when you complain about others on here.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 4:50 PM

anon 11:27 is incorrect in sadly mistaken, and the name calling and obscenities undermine his or her argument.

Perhaps you could get a job and earn some money and buy a house instead of being a disgruntled renter

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 9:51 PM

« Affordable Housing Watch: 1247 Flatbush Avenue Wednesday Links »

May 29, 2007

House of the Day: 227 Berkeley Place

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Get Brownstoner on your Mobile Phone

Latest Restaurant Additions