« Friday Links Red Hook Stevedores Get a 10-Year Lease »
April 25, 2008
Oh, Baby! Class Action Suit Alleges Broker Discrimination
This morning there are articles in the Times, the Sun, and the Post about a class-action lawsuit alleging that agents from Brown Harris Stevens' Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights offices discriminated against a couple because they had a kid. The couple, Jamie Katz and Lisa Nocera, started looking to move from Manhattan to Brooklyn in 2006, when Nocera was pregnant. They found an apartment they wanted to rent in Brooklyn Heights but a broker from Brown Harris Stevens told them they couldn't rent it because the landlord didn't want kids in the unit. A year later the couple, who now had a baby, was once again trying to uproot to Brooklyn but were denied a Park Slope rental they wanted because the owner told another Brown Harris Stevens agent that the apartment had lead paint and therefore wasn't safe for kids. Katz and Nocera are claiming that the refusal to rent to them violated federal, state, and city anti-discrimination laws, which specify that a landlord can't say he won't rent to prospective tenants based on "family status." As the Times article points out, many brokers are unaware—or choose to ignore—the laws. The broker for the Park Slope apartment, for example, allegedly left a voice mail message for the couple saying the following: “There was a child there before and ... it was just a big, big, big problem and they’re just, they just absolutely are not going to go through that again...They just don’t want to have to deal with it.” The suit seeks to ensure that Brown Harris Stevens agents comply with the law, and, if successful, it'll probably influence the way brokers around the city behave towards would-be renters with children. "The brokers are enabling the discriminatory goals of the landlord," the lawyer representing the couple told the Post.
Couple’s Suit Accuses Real Estate Firm of Bias Against Children [NY Times]
Real Estate Firm Sued Over Child Discrimination [NY Sun]
Apt. Suit: It's Bias Vs. Kids [NY Post]
Photo by Lab2112.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4667
Comments
cry babies, they should just buy their own freaking place.
Posted by: armchairwarrior at April 25, 2008 10:02 AM
If these were brownstones with one rental unit and the owners are living in the building they have the right to not rent to people with kids. Fair housing laws do not cover small buildings when the owner lives there.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:10 AM
F that. I wouldn't want to rent my ground-floor rental to someone with kids. Sorry. Too much hassle and risk and potential wear-and-tear.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:13 AM
It is 10:15 and only 2 comments? Come on Bring on the STROLLER MAFIA!!!!
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:14 AM
test!
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:16 AM
I own a 2 family and I can rent to anyone I want. These people are Horrible, Just trying to get money. GO FIND ANOTHER APARTMENT.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:16 AM
A white couple with a baby. You gotta fight for your right to procreate.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:21 AM
I think the problem is not so much renting to a couple with a child. The problem is renting to a couple with a child who puts no boundaries on what the child can do or not do on someone else's property. I was raised in an apt of a tow-family b'stone, and I can tell you that my parents would not let me run up and down the stairs or hop up and down on the floors or play ball or run around on the grass in the front yard, leave toys in the hallway or on the stairs, etc., etc. I was taught to respect property, whether it was ours or someone else's. This sensibility seems to have gotten lost on this generation of parents. A rental apt is not a free-for-all. It belongs to someone else. If you do want a free-for-all, no-holds-barred lifestyle for your children, then you should buy a home where you are free to do whatever you wish. My parents certainly wanted that for me but were not in a position to buy a home of their own at the time.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:24 AM
Who wants a baby crying in your apt chasing out your other tenants in a b-stone. Landlords in 3 family or less can rent to whoever they please if they live on premise. So they need to get over it.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:25 AM
This is ridiculous. Hard to feel sorry for these "oppressed" people.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:26 AM
Why would the couple want to move into an apartment with lead paint?
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:30 AM
If you don't want to follow housing laws, don't become a landlord.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:33 AM
Why should the landlord have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to de-lead an apartment that someone else would find perfectly fine?
The city council deserves to be sued, not the broker.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:35 AM
10:33 - obviously you didn't read the comments that a building where the owners live there and is 3 units or less does not have to follow Fair Housing Laws
Nowhere in this article did they clarify what type of buildings these rentals were in, but given neighborhoods there is a very good chance these were rentals where the owners were living there.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:40 AM
I wouldn't want to rent to a couple with a baby -- 1) lead paint, 2) noise, 3) stroller in hall issue and 4) they're only their for the 2 years bcs then the next baby is on the way and they need a bigger place.
And hey -- that's my right. I own a brownstone. I can't believe landlords in larger bldgs give two shits.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:41 AM
people with kids pay rent just like people without kids...i dont see the big deal. grownups often times are louder than kids, anyway. people can't choose your neighbors, only your neighborhood. i like to think that this also applies to landlords, but i guess most are crotchety.
Posted by: testnat at April 25, 2008 10:41 AM
city council? that makes no sense and this is stupid. if you are a landlord you must follow the law. if you have a 2 unit place then you are not protected or covered under the law so do what you want. if you are a broker you are licensed to uphold whatever laws are there to protect and defend. people get a life. sounds like they were steered away from a rental that didn't want kids but the broker didn't know this so they got caught in the middle. why would the broker have shown the place to them to begin with (insistent or not as the article in the times indicates) if indeed they knew the landlord would say no? sounds like imcompetency and lack of communication all around.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:43 AM
My point was that if the city council had made it cheaper to deal with the lead issue (and absolved the landlords of liability), the landlords wouldn't have such a HUGE financial incentive to disobey the law -- the law is really expensive. If you were a landlord, faced with doing renovations that would not increase the rents for your unit, and would cost 2 years of rent, you'd tell the broker 'no kids' too.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:53 AM
Obviously the places they were trying to rent were not in 3-family or less brownstones -- if they were, there would be no law suit (lawyers aren't THAT dumb). Why not read the articles before weighing in so adamantly? It seems the suit was mostly prompted by follow up testing of Brown Harris brokers by the Fair Housing Justice Center. It's a class action suit & this couple is mostly just a catalyst to make sure brokers aren't acting in a discriminating manner towards any people with children. They're suing because Brown Harris was breaking the law. It seems entirely reasonable to me.
(And I'm not a lawyer, and I don't got no kids.)
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:54 AM
Read an article before weighing in? Are you serious -- this is a blog -- it's the Jerry Springer show for people too lazy to be in a "studio audience" and shout out uninformed opinions. At least there, people would have their faces showing when they spew their unfounded, racist, sexist, and banal drivel.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:59 AM
How about discrimination against smokers, pet owners, or people with bad credit? Can they sue?
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:59 AM
One thing I didn't get about the article is that when the reporter called the buildings' owners they claimed that they had never instructed the agency to turn away applicants with kids. OK, so there's a good chance that this is a total lie. But if the owners were telling the truth: Why in the world would a real estate broker enforce such a policy?
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 11:25 AM
Wow. You guys sure get angry.
The issue is not whether or not you like this couple or like kids or if they were white or rich or poor or whatever. The issue is simple: one of the largest (the largest?) real estate companies in NY was blatantly violating the law.
Worse, they were not just violating the law: they were using fear tactics to violate the law. They were either lying and saying there was lead paint (when there wasn't) to scare off the parents. or they were protecting landlords who were not following the law regarding lead paint abatement. For anyone counting at home: that's two laws that may have been broken.
We have a pretty good system here in the US. there are laws. When people feel the law has been violated, they have a right to redress. A judge or a jury determines whether the law was violated. That is what is happening here.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 11:30 AM
11:30 is correct.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 11:38 AM
11:30 is correct.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 11:38 AM
I don't think Brown Harris Stevens did the right thing, but I agree with the person who posted this comment:
"One thing I didn't get about the article is that when the reporter called the buildings' owners they claimed that they had never instructed the agency to turn away applicants with kids. OK, so there's a good chance that this is a total lie. But if the owners were telling the truth: Why in the world would a real estate broker enforce such a policy?"
The brokers would never turn away qualified renters! Who are they kidding? Obviously the landlords instructed them they didn't want children in the apartments. It's really easy for the landlords to claim they didn't tell the realtors to not rent to children. Why didn't the landlords get investigated too?? By being "tested"? It seems the state only went after the people they'd get the most press over busting, the brokers. It's so political.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 11:52 AM
I comment on the headlines, I never read the actual article. Go whites with babies!!!!
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 11:56 AM
"We have a pretty good system here in the US. there are laws. When people feel the law has been violated, they have a right to redress. A judge or a jury determines whether the law was violated. That is what is happening here. "
No we don't asshole. The Police Officers who killed Sean Bell was acquitted this morning. Sean Bell was unarmed at the time of the shooting. So how in the fuck can you say "We have a pretty good system here in the US".
When you punk ass gets robbed and stomped, I hope you say the same things.
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
BTW This server is fucked up also!
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 11:56 AM
When I was a kid in the late sixties and early seventies, my white parents fought to get fair housing laws enforced. They would apply for apartments posing as a couple with so many kids (sometimes taking me and my sister, or neighbor kids along.) Then a Black couple would go to the building with the same number of kids and economic background. When they would get rejected the whole group would take them to court.
That is why these laws are on the books - to combat rampant discrimination against a group of disenfranchised people.
Of course, lawyers have found a way to pervert these laws to get money out of entitled white folks.
How embarrasing for us all.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:11 PM
11:38 is correct.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:11 PM
How about this?
How about people stop using brokers to rent apartments?
How about landlords get off their lazy asses and deal directly with potential renters? You can't discriminate when someone's looking you in the face... well, you can, but you'd be a really big asshole if you did.
Come on, New York. 10-15% of annual rent for someone to turn a key, and now for someone to discriminate? Ridiculous.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:17 PM
Lodi, NJ.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:19 PM
10:54 "Obviously the places they were trying to rent were not in 3-family or less brownstones -- if they were, there would be no law suit (lawyers aren't THAT dumb). Why not read the articles before weighing in so adamantly?"
Why not take your own advice and read the article? It says the first place they wanted was a carriage house and the second was in a brownstone. These both would probably have been 3 family or less.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:22 PM
First of all, Brooklyn Heights landlords are notorious a-holes, it goes with the inbred country club mentality. There's such demand for property there, that they can reject people based on their jobs! (A friend of mine who was initially acceptable to a co-op when he put down his deposit, was later rejected when they realized he worked for a controversial video game company). Of course, only idiots will actually SAY why they're rejecting you (and in this case, the brokers were just plain dumb).
But I have a feeling that the real reason wasn't the baby at all, but the fact that these two seemed like pests from the start; the frivolous lawsuit was just confirmation of what the brokerage and/or landlords had already suspected. When you're lording over property that's in high demand, the first thing you do is weed out potential trouble (Specimen A above). I guess i backfired on brokers/owners.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:22 PM
I just found out I know this couple and their child - becuase I serve them coffee everyday - and they are far from self-entitled, brat-raising Manhattanites. They are very nice people and their child is SUPREMELY well-behaved.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:24 PM
I own a baby and I would never let it live in my brownstone.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:24 PM
12:22 Are you an idiot or do you just like extolling the virtues of your parents? Do you really fail to see that what your parents did is very different than what is being debated? Not renting to an African American couple because of the color of their skin is arbitrary discrimination and there is an unfortunately long history of persecution in this country against African Americans. Not renting to a White couple because the landlord does not want to live in a building, maybe in the apartment directly below or above the baby, is about quality of life.
I used to live below grandparents whose six year grandkid would visit once a week. The f'in kid would run up and down the hallway for hours at a time. It drove us nuts. The kid also broke a window playing with its ball. How does this possibly relate to discrmination against African Americans?
Posted by: Brooklynnative at April 25, 2008 12:32 PM
i live in a building with kids and have a kid. really, i never hear them and ours does not run around screaming.
the anti-kid culture is bizarre and scary.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:34 PM
The BH landlord eventually rented the place to another couple with a child. Read the article. The suit is baseless.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:34 PM
12:22, I'm 10:54 and you're right -- what I should have said was "obviously the apartments they were looking at fell within the law that prevents people from discriminating against people with children." i don't know the exact details of the law or of the places they tried to rent, i just know the suit wouldn't even exist if the apartments they looked at weren't subject to that law (as some early comenters seemed to be saying).
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:34 PM
Dear Brooklyn native,
I am afraid that I am not the idiot.
I was not comparing this situation to racial discrimination, but reminding readers that the reason these laws exist was to protect African Americans who were being discriminated against.
I agree that this situation is a very different one, and was trying to say that I believe that the laws are being misapplied in this situation.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:43 PM
I have no idea of the merits of the suit - but the lead paint excuse is ridiculous. Virtually every apartment built before 1970 has lead paint - so what - in fact virtually everyone posting was raised in a home with lead paint (and obviously some ate the paint chips).
The issue isnt whether the apartment had lead paint - the issue is whether there is peeling, flaking or chipping that causes the lead paint to be potentially ingestible.
And in reality it is a violation of housing laws to have peeling, flaking lead paint whether there is a child present or not. Obviously kids are more likely to eat paint chips and the liability b/c of the damage from lead paint to a child is huge, but frankly only a LL who is ignorant of the law or a real slumlord would say no kids b/c of lead paint.
Frankly while the liability on the LL (who did NOTHING wrong re:paint) is ridiculous, it isnt that hard to keep lead from being a real problem and in terms of dealing with frivolous but expensive lawsuits - now that lead is in kids toys, medicines etc.... I believe the presumption that it must have come from the walls will be severely damaged and the lawyers who took alot of these cases thinking they would get an easy and large settlement will have a much tougher time and thereby less frivolous suits. Thank god for the chinese
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:44 PM
A Landlord has the right to rent to whomever they want. They are not obliged to accept any and every applicant. As long as the Landlord shows the apartment to ANYONE interested, they are free to ultimately exercise their free choice and accept whomever they choose.
Additionally, a landlord does not have to give a reason for rejection; a simple yes/no will suffice.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 12:58 PM
12:43
OK I understand I misread your post but that was because you are saying the laws are "being misapplied." The law prohibits landlords/brokers from not renting to people because they have kids. Therefore the law is certainly applicable to the situation.
I think you mean to say that the general conccept of non-discrimination is being made too broad and is now being applied to discrmination that is rationally based - ie., I don't want to live under a howling infant. So, the problem is not the miaspplication of the laws, the problem is its a lousy law. Resident landlords, especially in porous brownstones where noise travels, be it 2 family or an 8 family, should not be subjected to this law. There are certainly enough new, poured concrete buildings for people with kids to rent.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at April 25, 2008 12:59 PM
It is about time people start treating white heteros with crotch fruit like the vile nasty skanks they really are.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 1:17 PM
"A Landlord has the right to rent to whomever they want. They are not obliged to accept any and every applicant. As long as the Landlord shows the apartment to ANYONE interested, they are free to ultimately exercise their free choice and accept whomever they choose."
Comment like this one is the reason I hate this Blog!!! The ignorance and the covert racism is easy to hide when you are typing from a keyboard.
This issue is moot because Landlords are losing money. Plenty of apartments sit empty because Landlords are greedy and are waiting for some sucker to pay that high assed rent!
I hope the Brokers lose this case! If the Agents was that fucking stupid to say that reason for rejection, they should be taken to the cleaners.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ap4JffQHDqgE&refer=home
U.S. Economy: Sentiment Weakens More Than Anticipated
Oh BTW Consumer CONfidence was real fucking bad! High assed Gas prices and Mortgages will do that! It's Friday Boys and Girls! Go out today and see if any one is spending any money. See if the restaurants and gas stations are crowded and come back to me and say "We are going fine". I will say "Gofuckyourself"! 4.00 Gas here we come!
RIP Mutant Real Estate Bubble!!!!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Hey Brownstoner, this server is fucked up too, asshole!
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 1:19 PM
12:58 you are so wrong, a LL can not rent to whom they want - in fact there are a ton of people you can not discriminate against in renting for a whole bunch of reasons - and thanks to the moron of morons Bill Diblasio - you now can not dicriminate (i.e. refuse to rent) based on the fact that someone is on Welfare, Section 8 or any other public assistance.
Yup - even though the Government doesnt pay in a timely manner and people on Govt assistance are often the mnost difficult tenants - you can not refuse to rent b/c of there status. From the law itself....
"..cannot refuse to sell, rent, lease, approve the sale, rental or lease or otherwise deny to or withhold from any person or group of persons such a housing accommodation or an interest therein because of the actual or perceived race, creed, color, national origin, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, partnership status, or alienage or citizenship status of such person or persons, or because of any lawful source of income of such person or persons, or because children are, may be or would be residing with such person or persons. "
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 1:25 PM
Is it really that hard to click through the link and read the one page article?
"The owners of the buildings are not named in the suit, but two of them, reached for comment on Thursday, said they had not told Brown Harris to refuse to rent to families with children. One of them, the owner of the second Brooklyn Heights apartment, said he had eventually rented the apartment to a couple with a child."
Posted by: BoerumHill at April 25, 2008 1:29 PM
Regarding:
"When you punk ass gets robbed and stomped, I hope you say the same things."
The What
Oh dear, poor What! He was hoping and praying for a riot today! To send all the real estate buyers out to crapass Jersey where he lives and is so desperately trying to unload foreclosure mcmansions.
Too bad, tWhat, we're all staying. Boo hoo for you.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 1:44 PM
Beautiful downtown Lodi, New Jersey!
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 1:45 PM
I have a kid and am pretty sure I was rejected from two rentals due to that fact. It's lame, illegal, and should be stopped. I now live in a coop with lots of kids and except for when one is passing directly by our door, I never EVER hear anyone's kids. I am sooo surprised by the reactions I am reading. All you entitled owner/landlords should be ashamed of yourself. Not everyone can afford to buy a single family home in Brooklyn. And every kid deserves a roof over his or her head.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 2:07 PM
this doesn't really pass the smell test -- why on earth would a broker not be down for making the fast rental/buck unless told by the landlord? I think the landlord is lying and only rented to a family later when they saw they weren't getting it filled with a singleton.
and how many units could there be in a carriage house anyway?
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 2:19 PM
Yes a landlord in an owner-occupied building with three units or fewer doesn't have to follow fair housing guidelines, but real estate agents do, and should not accept listings from unreasonable landlords who ask them to break the law. I agree -- those LLs probably did tell the agents that they didn't want children (and then lied to the reporters), but in that case the agents were legally obligated not to take the listings. And for that one to leave that horrible message on an answering machine is just sheer stupidity -- how clueless can you be?
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 2:19 PM
"i live in a building with kids and have a kid. really, i never hear them and ours does not run around screaming.
the anti-kid culture is bizarre and scary."
Oh, so you're that bitch from the grocery store who doesn't even hear her kid going "mommy, mommy, mommy, mommy...." while we all give her dirty looks. Just because you can't hear your kid anymore doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 2:23 PM
"All you entitled owner/landlords should be ashamed of yourself. Not everyone can afford to buy a single family home in Brooklyn. And every kid deserves a roof over his or her head."
You sound like you and your little brat are the ones who are "entitled". You think your entitled to live in someone else's property even though they don't want you because you can't afford your own and you think your kid is entitled to a roof over his head. Get a real job before you have a kid you irresponsible loser. It's your kid, nobody else owes it a home. It's your fault. If you can't buy a house, can you at least buy a condom?
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 2:32 PM
"Yes a landlord in an owner-occupied building with three units or fewer doesn't have to follow fair housing guidelines, but real estate agents do, and should not accept listings from unreasonable landlords who ask them to break the law."
How stupid are you? As you yourself point out they are not asking the brokers to break the law. The law does not apply to them.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 2:34 PM
What you people with kids are forgetting is that it's not just about noise. It's about all the other resources that are included in rent. No landlord who can find a single tenant should have to rent to 2 parents and a kid (or several) who will use more water, demand higher heat cause you can't put a blanket on a baby, more gas and electricity if not separately metered, and cause more wear and tear. There's a reason hotel rooms charge for extra occupants. Why should the landlord have to absorb the extra expense of your kids?
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 2:42 PM
2:42 - I dont necessarily agree but either way - we are so much further down that slippery slope it is irrelevant.
Why should a LL have to accept an unemployed tenant (with kids) who is home all day (doing nothing productive and likely damaging) putting tons more wear and tear on the building, and using way more services? And who b/c they receive rent assistance - the LL has to wait months for the rent, years for rent increases and must deal with annual inspections by Govt bureaucrats.
Yet because of Bill Diblasio (and the other morons in the city council) this is EXACTLY what the law requires.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 3:01 PM
Here's a thought for all of you delightful landlords who rent out a part of your home in exchange for payment: don't rent to anyone. That's right. Live all by yourself in your house and pay your WHOLE mortgage. Oh, what's that? You depend on the income from your tenants to pay the mortgage? Really? Then shut up. Shut up and treat your tenants with respect (as they should treat you) and be glad for the symbiotic relationship that allows you to be a homedebtor and your tenant to have a nice place to live. As to the issue of renting to people with kids/no kids, would one really want to live in a place where the homedebtor/landlord had such a hateful attitude (I'm looking at you 2:32)? Not I. But the prejudices so constantly on display here certainly do prove the need for laws to protect against discrimination. Carry on with your general douchebaggery.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 4:00 PM
People stop feeling so entitled. If you have a kid and are still renting be humble and live where kids are welcome. I am a renter myself but I totally understand LLs not wanting to be held liable for lead poisoning (especially in our lawyer hungry country) or having some loud kid running around upstairs and breaking stuff...Oh i love kids mind you but before having one I would plan way in advance. Nobody owes YOUR kid a place to stay but yourself.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 4:04 PM
4:04, go read 11:30's post.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 4:20 PM
I am landlord (2 rentals apts) who has in past rented to tenant with young child but frankly I would be very hesitant to do again.
This is the law passed that did it.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/homeowners/lead_paint.shtml
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 4:40 PM
2:42, 4:04
You are miserable human beings. Go play in traffic.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 4:52 PM
Thank you, 4:00. People pretend that they can do whatever they like cuz they are 'owners' while sucking up the high rents available in Brownstone Brooklyn. You give up some property rights when you become a landlord.
I'm converting a 2fam south slope home to a one fam. I don't want to be a landlord.
Posted by: denton at April 25, 2008 5:01 PM
Oh, I see. Anyone who's not willing to fund your kid for you is a miserable human being? Take some personal responsibility and teach your kid some. Welfare states the world over are collapsing under their own weight. By the time little Timmy grows up he's going to have to make his own way. Teach him now or he'll be living under a bridge.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 5:47 PM
There are a whole lot of bitter renters on this post today!
Hey 4:00 - I own my house and I don't have renters. Renters are the scum of the earth.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 6:12 PM
Hey 4:52 you seem to be the bitter and miserable one no? Come play with me...eh in traffic you IDIOT.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 6:56 PM
6:12
We don't rent out our upper duplex to tenants (chalk it up to a lifestyle decision...or maybe a "folly")and I even shudder at the noise coming through the brick party wall once in a while, but you're being mean writing that "renters are the scum of the earth."
Maybe it's just silliness...or...maybe you're actually a renter, not a homeowner, so you're just kidding and being ironic...
If so, it still reads as needlessly negative.
Renting is hard in NYC. Rents are really high right now and many people are making a lot of sacrifices to cover their rents. Many are paying north of 50% of their income in rent. It's a sad situation. It is the same in other big cities around the world. Rents have gotten crazy.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 9:08 PM
Oh, and BTW, the photo of their baby-in-a-bubble is kind of cute!
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 9:12 PM
Can you charge additional rent based on the child's weight?
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 9:47 PM
Only the on weight of baby elephants since landlords have to spend about $75k on ironwork to reinforce the building.
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 9:57 PM
Brooklynnative @ 12:32, I hope you realize that you are negatively stereotyping in the same way your mother's would-be landlords did back in the day. You're assuming that everyone with kids lets them run up and down the hallways and be obnoxious. Don't you think that's just as dangerous as stereotyping black people?
Posted by: guest at April 25, 2008 10:46 PM
Fair housing law is for everybody.
If the owner lives in the buildimg so what.
The law mandates they have to rent to people who have children.
It is discriminatory if the owner doesn't..
New York has several different protected classes of people.
Here goes:
The people with disabilities, age is not a factor,
People with children.
Senior citizens,
Nationality, religion, color, etc.
Unmarried couples living together, gay or straight.
You cannot discriminate based on gender.
Discrimination against mental illness
(wide open for interpretation)
Children have rights, too but that is a whole other complicated subject.
The above list is only the tip of the iceberg.
It is a federal law.
Human Rights Commision and Open Housing Center is where you file your complaint.
They provide lawyers free of charge to protect your interests.
It doesn't matter how much money you make or have.
Posted by: Ysabelle at April 25, 2008 10:56 PM
Journalists make mistakes in their writing all the time.
Their research is not as good as you think.
If you want to know something double check the info yourself.
Posted by: Ysabelle at April 25, 2008 11:05 PM
Vie De Merde
Posted by: Ysabelle at April 25, 2008 11:08 PM
SUSAN GREENFIELD (merdinger) vice president of Brown Harris Stevens real estate firm is a tramp and a dishonest business woman.
Posted by: Ysabelle at April 26, 2008 12:08 AM
Can we refuse to rent to the tWhat? Notice his dissapearance once Section 8 entered this discussion/argument?
Posted by: guest at April 26, 2008 12:35 AM
Try New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.
They are pro bono.
Posted by: Ysabelle at April 26, 2008 12:51 AM
Of course most of the posters here are renters. They spent the better part of the real estate downturn hoping it would get worse and worse. Oh well. Even Brownstoner himself went into the flea business (Brownstoner = Flea Business...W/T/F).
Anyway I own a whole building in the hood and would not rent to anyone. Sorry, I have a real job and dont need the money.
Brown Harris Stevens..well since when did we think they were credible. They never were and never will be the premiere Brooklyn firm.
Any comments, bring em on. I am not going to even check.
Posted by: guest at April 26, 2008 7:16 AM
ysabelle, spreading misinformation as usual.
Posted by: guest at April 26, 2008 10:22 AM
Ysabelle,
Unfotunately Fair Housing Laws do not apply to everyone, as previous posters have stated. I have been a tenant and a landlord. I made my mistakes at both and would not care to be either again. In both cases a lack of knowledge lead to situations that could have been handled differently. Tenants and landlords need to educate themselves. HPD and many neighborhood housing and development groups offer great classes that are specific to NYC. After attending a mini-seminar, I learned what I could and could not do as a landlord in my six-family building and in the three-family where I lived. Rules were drastically different for the two. I eventually sold them at a bigger profit than I could have gotten from the rent rolls and I was glad to be rid of the headaches. I live in a one family without tenants and have found ways other than real estate, to invest my money.
Posted by: guest at April 26, 2008 1:35 PM
oh my gawd, ive held this in for two weeks.
riding the F train, on caroll st. stop, on gets this juppy with a semblance of a puppy,
shes dressed all sloppy, her hair looks like it hasnt been shampooed in months, this guy in a suit is with her, they start talking about pregnancy really loud,
she starts blabbing...i dont know if if supposed to read week 20 or week 21, i think i should ask doctor -----, so the guy says thats kind of silly to ask the doctor that, a baby is in its first year but its not one year old until after one year has passed, its not hard to figure out, she says i know its just so confusing,
i quickly look her over and realize she might have a little baby bump, maybe shes just a little pudgy there, im sitting down they are standing right in front of me, i think this is some sort of ploy to snag a seat from a chivalrous dude, but im not that dude....
the guy in a suit looks kind of gay, i swear hes looking at me giving me the secret gay eye contact deer in the headlights look...
but then they start kissing..and i realize this is a cuple, he is probably just the sperm donor...
so anyways, then she says she doesnt know if she can get her hair colored, which might be true, i dont know, but gawddangit lady, maybe some hot water and brush is not going to hurt your baby,,,
i dont remember the whole conversation, but i do remember the next vomit inducing subject... actually first she started on abouty how she can go to ------'s wedding because THE BOOK (again referring to some bible like baby book) the book says you should not go father than 10 miles from your OB, the dude then responded why dont you just park yourself outside the doctors office for the next 6 months...
i wanted to give the dude a high five right there and say "good one, man, good one!"
he further goes on to mention that he received an email from ---- congratulating him mentioning that you should go and do as much as you can because the last 3 months revolves around being close to a potty,,,
he called it a potty, im assumming this lady's schedule will revolve around urinary functions...
i really dont remember the rest, but i did mention when i got off that not i remember why i never want to have kids...
gawd these people are awful...
i would definately not rent out to an expectant couple, these two nitwits solidified my decision.
Posted by: guest at April 26, 2008 7:06 PM
http://www.vhemt.org/anobreed.htm
I'm extra smart. Shouldn't I pass on my genes?
Well, could you pass a minimal intelligence test if one were required for a "license to breed"?
To find out, simply answer this question:
In light of the 40,000 children dying of malnutrition each day, and considering the number of species going extinct as a result of our excessive reproduction, do you think it would be a good idea to create another of yourself?
YES
NO
Thank you for playing.
http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm
Posted by: guest at April 26, 2008 7:46 PM
The Fair Housing Act exempts owner-occupied multi-family dwellings of 4 units of fewer from the law. If it's your property and you live there and there are no more than 3 other rental units, you can discriminate to your heart's content. I'll assume the brownstone owner didn't live in the brownstone and therefore did not have the right to discriminate because the Fair Housing Justice Center must know this exemption and would not bring a class action suit otherwise. None of the newspaper articles mentioned this exemption to the Fair Housing Act, which just proves how lame mainstream reporting is.
Posted by: guest at April 27, 2008 9:15 PM
Again, that's all very well and good (and actually four units is considered a commercial space for financing and renting restrictions, so it has to be 3 units or fewer, one of which is owner-occupied), but a real estate agent cannot accept such a listing. So the legal violation is not against the owners, but against Brown Harris Stevens and its agents, who have violated their conditions of licensing.
Posted by: guest at April 28, 2008 10:43 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.