« Wednesday On The Record Stop Work Order Enforcement Comes to Brooklyn »
May 3, 2007
Thursday Links
Brownstones, Park Slope. Photo by guanubian.
Bistricer Trying to Cut New Starrett Deal [NY Times]
Spitzer Aiming to Raise De-Stabilization Threshold [NY Post]
Developers Rushing To Beat the Tax Man [NY Sun]
280 Washington Avenue: Fame Slept Here [NY Magazine]
One Year After the Greenpoint Warehouse Fire [Gothamist]
The Greening of Lincoln Road [Across the Park]
The History and Intention of the ESDC [AY Report]
Investing in a Co-op with Rent-Stabilized Tenant? [Forum]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1084
Comments
I heart Spitzer.
Posted by: sylvia at May 3, 2007 9:27 AM
This such a pretty picture. Is this 8th avenue in the slope.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 10:57 AM
I am sorry, but $2000 is a fair cut off and $175,000 a year? When the average income is like $35,000 this socialism for the rich is nothing less than grotesque.
And I support Rent Stabilization!
Posted by: GrandPa at May 3, 2007 11:17 AM
I agree with GrandPa. Rent-stabilized tenants should be made to undergo renewals every few years and evicted if they earn more than a certain amount. These apartments should be rented according to economic need.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 11:39 AM
Think of how nice this row would look with their stoops put back and the awkward, squarish windows that take the place of the main entrance removed. Funny they all had their amputations done uniformly.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 11:48 AM
these so-called developers can't hold a candle to the old stuff...this picture should be sent to all the hacks out there designing buildings in brooklyn today...they should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 11:55 AM
Grandpa...you're kind of arguing against yourself in that post. Since the average income is about $35K, then how many really rich people are occupying stabilized apartments? The landlords always trot out some rich celebrities to make this point, but they are not representative of the majority of people who occupy rent-stabilized apartments. And Spitzer isn't even planning to raise the income threshhold, so really what's your point?
And Anon, 11:39...you do understand that most tenants in rent-stabilized apartments would be qualified to stay in them because they already pay more than a third of their income in rent, so at least for those tenants, the apartments are already occupied by people in economic need.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 11:57 AM
Re:"Developers Rushing To Beat the Tax Man" The rush to build before the 421-a deadline will create a glut. And if the economy softens in late 07 or early 08 it's not going to be pretty.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 12:10 PM
I could provide a "housing tour" of all my rent stabilized tenants who are scamming the system. Half of them live elsewhere put retain their "city" apartments as their "primary residence." It's not worth going to court since the tenants always win in my experience and lawyer bills are astronomical.
Is it fair that one tenant who has literally showed me his $1,000,000+ stock portfolio statement can rent an apartment I could rent on the open market for $2800/mo, for $700/mo since he's been there thirty years?
The system should protect folks who need low rents, not folks who simply got lucky and can afford to live elsewhere.
Posted by: Ludicrous at May 3, 2007 12:12 PM
I would be interested to see some statistics on people staying in rent stabilized apartments (high low & average on age, income, etc.). I suspect that the average income would be above that of the city's but maybe I'm wrong.
Posted by: rj at May 3, 2007 12:13 PM
Spitzer's move is purely political. Who the hell is he helping?
As a landlord, I'll simply spend even more money renovating my apartments (granite counters, stainless steel appliance, etc.) to get the legal rent up to $2800/mo. (1/40th cost = per month increase.)
The apartment doesn't actually have to rent for $2800/mo. Only the registered legal rent has to hit $2800/mo to qualify for deregulation.
I used to respect Spitzer, but this is such a politically motivated move, it's sickening. It doesn't help anybody and only make Spitzer look better to uneducated rent stabilized tenants who don't understand that the rent laws.
I read Spitzer gets something like $750,000 a years from his share of his families real estate holdings in NYC. This guy is filthy rich and he doesn't even have to do any work at all. He knows the increase won't effect him, so what does he care?
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 12:32 PM
RJ,
There's a reason so many rent stabilized tenants don't make a lot of money. What motivates people to work hard when their rent is only $500/mo?
Rent stabilization is idiotic.
Rent vouchers for people who truly need them are one thing. Forcing private landlords to subidize folks who simple got lucky by renting years ago is moronic.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 12:37 PM
In my co-op, some of the old rental holdouts rent out spare bedrooms for double and triple the unit's full rent (I live in Brooklyn Heights). One of these gals owns a house in the Hamptons. Another one rebuffed her childrens' pleas to buy the apartment and basically maintains that the building is not good nough for her to invest in. Another couple pay about $625 a month for a two-bedroom apartment. As a result, he has not worked for years and their full-time occupation is complaining about every little thing so as not to have to pay rent at all. It's sad. I think rent control has robbed this couple of so much although they believe it has helped them. But it has done just the opposite. They have never come of age financially. They could have bought into the co-op originally for 1/100th of what their unit is worth today.
Posted by: fred at May 3, 2007 12:43 PM
ah, how refreshing to read the reports of landlords and co-op owners who believe they're being screwed by rent regulation. Ludicrous--if you believe that Housing Court is skewed in the tenants' favor, well, then obviously you haven't been there in like...forever?
and fred, if your co-op board is unwilling to deal with rent-stabilized tenants who are breaking the law by profiteering...well, then obviously you need to get yourself on the board and change that.
and the two anonymous posters who say that Spitzer's doing this for political reasons...well, duh, he's a politician. don't vote for him next time.
(sorry if this posts twice. b'stoner must've gone back to the unresponsive server)
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 2:31 PM
anonymous 2:31
Good point about the profiteering, but you know what we discovered? It is perfectly legal for a rent-control tenant to rent out spare bedrooms and turn their rent-regulated apartment into an income producing property.
It is also legal for a rent control or regulated tenant to own multi-million dollar homes elsewhere, as long as they are registered to vote in NYC and they spend a specific number of days in their apartment so as to maintain their "primary residence" requirement.
They can also sublet their apartments for a number of years if they can show that they have a compelling reason to live elsewhere temporarily.
However, they are not allowed to deal drugs in their apartment, that is one of the few ways that they can be evicted.
They hold all the cards, I'm telling you. Folks who haven't been through it can't believe that this can be true, but it is.
Posted by: Fred at May 3, 2007 2:56 PM
Fred, my experiences as a landlord over the last 10 years in NYC conform 100% to your last post.
I started a non-payment case today against a rent stabilized tenant who hasn't paid rent in a year. Stupidly, I accepted excuse after excuse about when I'd get the money.
Lawyer fees are prohibitively expense and immposible to recoup in housing court from the tenant, so I tried everything before resorting to this.
I can practically guarantee I won't be able to evict this person. The court will force me to accept a "rent payment plan" until he gets caught up and I'll be out a couple thousand bucks in legal fees.
What a bunch of crap.
Posted by: arkus at May 3, 2007 3:33 PM
Arkus,
I know this all too well.
I tell people, forget diamonds, a rent regulated tenant is forever.
It is also ironic that although an owner has no right to make a profit on their property, a rent-regulated tenant does. They can sublet or rent out and make a tidy sum.
The lady in my building sho rents out her second bedroom to NYU students would holler if she was told she could not charge what the market will bear.
Posted by: Fred at May 3, 2007 4:22 PM
Please remember that these regulations were put in place because of the greed of landlords. Now they have to live with them.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 4:48 PM
Arkus- I couldn't agree with you more.
2:31- I have to refute your statement "if you believe that Housing Court is skewed in the tenants' favor, well, then obviously you haven't been there in like...forever?"
I've worked as an attorney for both tenants and landlords. From an attorney perspective, there's plenty of money to be made defending landlords simply because of things like rent payment plans. The tenant can pay one month, skip the next month and then you're back in court again. Great for the lawyer, not so great for the landlord who has to pay for all this. There are many options available to tenants fighting eviction in NYC. These options drag the process on for months and months.
An educated tenant who knows all the "loopholes" can be a nightmare.
With that said, some landlords are slumlords trying to get over, but in general, I think tenants have the upper hand in housing court.
Posted by: Anonymouse at May 3, 2007 4:50 PM
Fred--you're wrong. Check this out (and hire new lawyers):
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/profiteering/index.html
arkus--collection of legal fees by the winning party is governed by the lease, you know, not housing court. just sayin.'
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 4:56 PM
well I don't think I am wrong, what i'm telling you is what has transpired in my building. I do not own that occupioed aparmtent but I do know that the owner of it, who I would characterize as an old-time, hardened real estate investor, took the lady to court and lost. She had not converted her apartment into a "dorm" she just rented out her second bedroom. It was and is a concern to the coop because new renters come and go and we have no idea who they are.
You strike me as a bit arrogant. I would like to hear about your experiences in real life, not just your search engine results.
Posted by: Fred at May 3, 2007 5:14 PM
fred: here's my background. moved into illegally sublet rent-controlled apartment in 1976. when manager of building refused to terminate rent-controlled lease and sign one with me, i moved out. (btw, the tenant of record on that apartment was a notorious abuser of the system who went to jail in 1981.) in 1978 i moved into illegal loft space in tribeca, got involved with loft tenant movement and counseled tenants at a weekly housing clinic for seven years, and i never advocated breaking the law. after years of fighting with our landlord, the tenants bought the building and turned it into a co-op. (btw, lest you feel sorry for the landlord, he made out handsomely in this transaction.)
also, in case you didn't notice, the case i directed you to was just last year, so perhaps this hardened real estate type might try again.
sorry if you think i'm arrogant, but i get really tired of listening to people bring up individual situations which are not representative of the vast majority of rent-regulated tenants. I can counter your description of one tenant with 10-20 of people who earn less than average income and benefit only from the legal advantages of rent stabilization.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 6:27 PM
Dear Anon 6:27
Thanks for the background, very interesting.
My experiences are what I know, I let others speak of theirs. There must be a way to improve the system so as to protect the vulnerable but to discourage abuse. I must admit that my experience with cynical (and often very well-off) renters in Brooklyn Heights forms my outlook because that is what i know first hand.
Posted by: fred at May 3, 2007 7:32 PM
6:27pm,
I'm not sure what's "representative of the vast majority of rent-regulated tenants." All I know is what I've experienced myself as a landlord in lower Manhattan over the last 10 years.
Your landlord in 1976 was lucky as hell not to agree to rent you that rent controlled apartment. You'd still be living there and probably be paying a couple hundred bucks a month rent. Instead you own your own place that's probably worth half a million dollars or more. Both you and your old landlord are better off.
Countless New Yorkers would be better off if the rent laws never existed because they would own valuable properties like you do, but instead they stayed in rental apartments their entire lives because they were dirt cheap.
I have an older tenant with a rent controled apartment paying less than $200/mo. who has to have the Dept. of Social Services pay his rent because he figured he never had to make any money since his rent was so cheap. In my opinion, his rent controlled apartment ruined his life.
The rent laws are bad for society at large, both landlords and tenants equally.
Posted by: Arkus at May 3, 2007 10:05 PM
Arkus--just to correct your mis-reading of my history, I was renting a rent-controlled apartment which was being sublet by a phantom prime tenant who later went to jail for doing this. I was definitely not paying rent-controlled rent, a fact I only discovered when the building's management slipped a real rent notice under my door. Management wouldn't sign a lease with me--even at the much higher rent I was paying--cause the phantom prime tenant rented many of their apartments so they never had to deal with individual tenants. That's why he went to jail. When I couldn't get a lease in my name, I moved.
I am not for anyone who abuses the system, landlord or tenant. Your opinion about your rent-controlled tenant, however, is just that: an opinion.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2007 9:37 AM
My friend down the street from me lives in a rent stabilized apartment on the bottom floor of a brownstone. Her building was sold and the new owners were apparently under the impression that they could just get rid of her and the tenant on the top floor, a disabled man with a terminal illness. When they found out it wasn't going to be as easy as they thought, they pitched a fit. They left on vacation in the dead of winter and turned the heat off. My friend had to call the firemen to break down the door so they could get to the thermostat and turn the heat back on so she and the sick man didn't freeze to death.
Now, I know that it must suck to have a family and buy a really expensive brownstone that you thought you would have all to yourself and then find out the real estate broker or whoever lied to you. It must suck that they can't use their own backyard, because the only access to it is from my friend's apartment. It must suck to *only* have two floors to house your family in. But their "right" to those two apartments is not inviolable. Even if the man on the top floor wasn't rent stabilized, I would say it's immoral for them to kick him out without making sure he has somewhere decent to go. Being able to use all four floors of a building (or rent out apartments for full market rate) is not your God-given right. Being a decent human being should always take precedence.
Posted by: anecdotal at May 4, 2007 9:46 AM
Market rents for all!
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2007 10:35 AM
Being a landlord is problematic, don't take out your problems on the whole system. You should have done your research better, sell the building if you can.
Find a profession, or vocation, that
better suits your personality.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 6, 2007 12:41 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.