« Condo of the Day: 11 Terrace Place, #2 StreetLevel: People's Republic of Brooklyn Opens on Smith »

October 8, 2009

House of the Day: 130 Summit Street

130-Summit-Street-1009.jpg
At first blush, this three-family house at 130 Summit Street looked like agreat deal to us: $1,350,000 for a four-story house with lots of charm in Carroll Gardens? Sign us up. But then comes the heartbreaking fine print: The 3rd floor apartment has a dreaded rent-controlled tenant paying $325 a month. (Approximately $1,600 under market. Ridiculous!) Anyway, we'll let the quants out there decide how big a discount to market value that should mean for the house. Still might be a decent play, except for the fact that the rent controlled tenant's location means the owner won't be able to expand beyond a duplex.
130 Summit Street [Douglas Elliman] GMAP P*Shark





Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11777

Comments

ummm - "dreaded rent control Tenant"
ok yikes, that's mean, no? it's probably some old Italian lady that's been there for like 80 years - give her a break!

I think this is a great house and the fact that you can live on the first two floors, rent the third if you want and just accept you have a RC tenant OR if you have the $$ you occupy the whole 3 floors and deal with the RC tenant until she dies

Posted by: gemini10 at October 8, 2009 1:21 PM

That's a lot of scratch to have a large 1 BR apartment for your family and have to be a landlord for 2. Especially since garden floor looks like pretty low ceiling.

Too bad the duplex doesn't look like it'd make a reasonable small 2BR otherwise w/ the rent-controlled space, come down about $175-200K and it looks like a good value.

At that price, a nice deal if you have no kids and want to be a landlord I suppose...

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 8, 2009 1:23 PM

How come one unit is rent controlled and the other isn't?
How does that work?

Posted by: brownjokester at October 8, 2009 1:26 PM

BJ- usually b/c one of the tenants decides to move or dies and the apt is then vacant and the owner can do what they want with it at that point....

Posted by: gemini10 at October 8, 2009 1:28 PM

"it's probably some old Italian lady"
or it could be a really obnoxious middle aged capo who "inherited" the apartment and whose hobbies are gun collecting and smoking in bed.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at October 8, 2009 1:29 PM

MFN:
fwiw - I would turn that "den" into a big BR

Posted by: gemini10 at October 8, 2009 1:31 PM

rob: poo mist alert! toilet 2' from kitchen!

Also, am I reading the floor plan right? The tenants share common stair with owner?!

Posted by: cmu at October 8, 2009 1:35 PM

Unfortunately, rent control does not end with death. I believe an immediate family member can be added to the lease and upon the current tenants expiration, the lease will be transferred to that tenant.

Posted by: BrooklynIsHome at October 8, 2009 1:36 PM

I thought (I guess wrongly) that to be RC you needed more units in the building. How did this occur with a 3 fam dwelling? What is the minimum?

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at October 8, 2009 1:38 PM

where are the posters who believe that getting rid of renters is no problem, or better yet, that there is no such thing as rent control in brownstone apartments, or that if the owner wants to use it for his own purposes that a letter from a lawyer will suffice to get the tenant packing? Obviously this tenant is savvy and does not want to move, ever. If they could have been bought out, the sellers would have done it. If you are interested in buying this house, you should meet the tenant and decide if you can accept them into your family, because as I have written before, it is really their house, you are the interloper.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at October 8, 2009 1:39 PM

the tenant has to have been there b4 year of the flood.
And you just can't add someone to lease (and a lease probably does not even exist). They need to be living there before the tenant dies.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 8, 2009 1:41 PM

From my understanding; and this is based on people/friends telling me that have lived in large stabilized buildings.

When a rent Controlled/Stabilized unit becomes vacant, a landlord can spruce it up and increase the rent a certain percentage. After doing this several times and the apt has reached a certain $$ amount, then it becomes destabilized/decontrolled and they can get market value.

how does it work in a small 3-family like this?

Posted by: brownjokester at October 8, 2009 1:47 PM

once this tenant vacates (probably by death or to nursing home) becomes free market.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 8, 2009 1:50 PM

all I can say is those are some of the prettiest paint colors I have seen in a long time. I'm cutting and pasting them all onto my paint color inspiration list!

Posted by: gkw at October 8, 2009 1:57 PM

i hope he or she lives to be 145 years old and her 120 year old daughter and 100 year old granddaughter just moved in last year.


*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 8, 2009 1:57 PM

I'm really liking the contextual green paint on the facade. :(

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 8, 2009 1:58 PM

I got news for all of youse.

The rent control tenant is less of a discount/problem than the

BBBBBBUUUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

from the BQE.

keep your windows shut.

or cover the BQE = big upside for this prop.

Posted by: antidope at October 8, 2009 2:00 PM

Yes, Agree about the colors. The purplish one is the best
And I am loooooving the mint facade.

Posted by: brownjokester at October 8, 2009 2:00 PM

Minard
sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don;t
my father and my elderly aunt were both RC tenants in Queens
paying $400 and $325 respectively until they passed away in 2001 and 2003. whereas people coming into their buildings were probably paying well above $1000 in rent.
But the people coming in now are also making $50K-75K and can afford that. What's a little old retiree supposed to do when her SS check is $400 a month and maybe her pension is $600 a month?

Posted by: gemini10 at October 8, 2009 2:00 PM

PeteBK- are you sure? what if rc tenant's son/daughter is living there too. i understood they can take over the lease...

Posted by: antidope at October 8, 2009 2:02 PM

2 comments:
first, who are the people who lowball every single property on the ticker? Are you people blind to actual sales data? That house will obviously fetch way more than $1 million. So what is the point of lowballing it like this? It makes the tool that much less accurate.

Second: it seems the rent controlled renter is the previous owner of the buidling, she sold, but with a provision allowing her to live in the building forever at a discounteed rent. Not sure if that carries over to her heirs.

Posted by: spqrxxi at October 8, 2009 2:03 PM

if son or daughter is living there then they are tenant also.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 8, 2009 2:06 PM

Can someone do the math, please.
If one tenant is paying $325. and the Other $1,950. How much will the mortgage be at this asking price?

Posted by: brownjokester at October 8, 2009 2:07 PM

my rent total (2 apts) is slightly less than this. BUt I'm a wuss landlord.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 8, 2009 2:09 PM

r u for real brownjkr?
i'm sure there's a calculator on your computer.

Posted by: antidope at October 8, 2009 2:11 PM

Spgrxxi -- Where do you get the information that the tenant is the former owner? That would not be rent controlled, but rather a life estate, which is a huge difference from a rent control situation.

Antidope -- you are correct that, if this is a true R/C apartment, an immediate family member who has been living there for at least 2 years (I think) with the R/C tenant can continue to live in the unit if the R/C tenant were to die.

What I am not sure about is whether the apartment remains subject to rent control, converts to rent stabilization, or what. Also, I am not sure what the restricitons on evictions for owner occupancy would be after such an event.

Posted by: Boerumresident at October 8, 2009 2:11 PM

how's this for jumping to conclusions -- I can tell from the owner's decor that they're young enough and on the ball enough to have gotten rid of the tenant if at all possible. Since they can't, I can't. I gotta assume that. So a 96 yr old italian grandmother I might be able to live with. But it's just as likely a 70 yr old and her 40 year old daughter and the daughter's daughter? Nope.

Posted by: Ringo at October 8, 2009 2:22 PM

Doesn't it seem like every building on Summit comes with a rent controlled tenant?

Posted by: MR at October 8, 2009 2:24 PM

Antidope hits the nail on the head: Back when I was house hunting I looked at 2 on Summit. Inside, with windows closed, the realtor and I could just barely hear each other over the noise and constant rumble from the BQE, and this house is even closer to the roadway than those were! Although a RC tenant can preclude so many of the ways you would like to use your own home, the biggest quality-of-life issue for me would be the noise.

Posted by: brikenny at October 8, 2009 2:25 PM

I knew someone who bought (as a long-term investment)a co-op apartmnet from a sponsor at a cut-rate price that was occupied by a little old lady with a rent-regulated lease. She of course would have lifetime use of the apartment. A week or two after the closing she died. The apartment instantly quadrupled in value. Its one of those things. If the lady upstairs is older and seems nice, then it may be worth the investment. If the lady lives with her 47-year old daughter, then no.
Also, just to clarify something, if a rent-regulated apartment is vacated it does not automatically revert to market. The rules are complicated. Units are not de-regulated until they reach a rent of $2,000 a month and it is difficult to get there when you start out so low.
In a situation like this, you can chose not to rent it again.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at October 8, 2009 2:28 PM

i just went to check out the other OT. cheeze itz. it's way too darkside. i tried posting and it wouldnt let me.


*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 8, 2009 2:42 PM

A rent-control apt. in this building when vacancy occurs would become free market. It is fewer than 6 apts and would not become rent-stabilized.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 8, 2009 2:43 PM

In buildings with fewer than six units apartments become automatically de-controled? I have never heard that. You may be right, but it seems anthithetical to the ideology behind rent-regulation especially considering how many thousands of buildings in the boros fall in that category.
Can someone confirm this?

Posted by: Minard Lafever at October 8, 2009 2:49 PM

not a lawyer but that is what i've been told by lawyers, with previous noted exception (see 206p).

Posted by: antidope at October 8, 2009 2:53 PM

at 975k, I wouldn't mind if tenant lived there till I decide to move out. before than, let someone else with more $$$ to burn have at it.

nice house though.

Posted by: more4less at October 8, 2009 2:55 PM

sorry my last comments was for ot

Posted by: Butterfly at October 8, 2009 2:58 PM

aside from the noise ...

why not rearrange into a 3 over 1?
i'm sure the tenant can be moved to equivalent abode.
then you'd have a 2250 sq ft triplex at or about 500/sq ft in cg with free option on the garden rental.

BUUUZZZZZ!!!

Posted by: antidope at October 8, 2009 3:01 PM

Heartbreaking? Ridiculous? Please. I'm a homeowner, but I totally support a legitimate rent-controlled tenant's right to stay as long as they wish, and the sentiment that their presence is somehow "heartbreaking" is what's ridiculous. I hope the little old Italian lady lives to be 120.

Posted by: Frederick Law Homestead at October 8, 2009 3:05 PM

nice idea antidope...but I doubt old person wants to move 1 floor higher in a walkup.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 8, 2009 3:15 PM

reverse it. move her to the garden level.

Posted by: antidope at October 8, 2009 3:25 PM

and, coldly, i don't think she has a choice in the matter since it'd be equivalent (or better) living situation.

Posted by: antidope at October 8, 2009 3:27 PM

A rent controlled tenant has life tenancy in that specific apartment. You can certainly offer them a nicer place on a different floor but the tenant is under no obligation to move one inch.

Posted by: JoeBushwick at October 8, 2009 4:19 PM

Ringo, I can tell from the owner's decor that they're too *ethical* to push out this lovely old lady.

Posted by: mopar at October 8, 2009 5:24 PM

Everyone thinks it's an old lady.

Posted by: Nomi at October 9, 2009 1:09 AM

For clarification about rent controlled apartments in building with six or fewer units becoming deregulated rather than stabalized when when vacated see the below excerpt from the Rent Guidelines Board website:

Is there a difference between RENT CONTROL and RENT STABILIZATION?

Some of the people who email us say "rent controlled" but actually MEAN rent stabilized -- they do not know the difference.

Why is it so hard to be accurate? There is a difference between rent control and rent stabilization, as only about 50,000 rent controlled units exist vs. more than one million stabilized units and rent control has a different set of regulations than rent stabilization.

The term "rent regulated" encompasses both rent controlled and rent stabilized units. By the way, the Rent Guidelines Board has the responsibility for setting rent adjustments for rent stabilized apartments. We have no jurisdiction over rent controlled apartments, which is the responsibility of the NY State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).

Rent Control:

The rent control program generally applies to residential buildings constructed before February 1947 in municipalities that have not declared an end to the postwar rental housing emergency. A total of 51 municipalities have rent control, including New York City, Albany, Buffalo and various cities, towns, and villages in Albany, Erie, Nassau, Rensselaer, Schenectady and Westchester counties.

For an apartment to be under rent control, the tenant (or their lawful successor such as a family member, spouse, or adult lifetime partner) must have been living in that apartment continuously since before July 1, 1971. When a rent controlled apartment becomes vacant, it either becomes rent stabilized, or, if it is in a building with fewer than six units, it is generally removed from regulation. For more information on succession and the definition of family member, check out the fact sheet.

An apartment in a one- or two-family house must have a tenant in continuous occupancy since April 1, 1953 in order to be subject to rent control. Once it is vacated after that date, it is no longer subject to regulation. Previously controlled apartments may have been decontrolled on various other grounds. On rare occasion, a decontrolled apartment is ordered back under rent control as a penalty for certain violations of the rent laws.

Rent Stabilization:

In NYC, rent stabilized apartments are those apartments in buildings of six or more units built between February 1, 1947 and January 1, 1974.

Tenants in buildings of six or more units built before February 1, 1947, who moved in after June 30, 1971 are also covered by rent stabilization.

A third category of rent stabilized apartments covers buildings with three or more apartments constructed or extensively renovated since 1974 with special tax benefits. Generally, these buildings are stabilized only while the tax benefits continue.

Many Exceptions:

THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXCEPTIONS TO BOTH OF THESE GENERAL CATEGORIES. For example, if the legal rent exceeded $2,000 following a vacancy the unit may be deregulated. Or, if the unit was in a building converted to a co-op it may be deregulated upon vacancy

Posted by: bwrobel at October 9, 2009 12:01 PM

Thanks, bwrobel. Very helpful. I shall promptly forget all that, but still.

Posted by: Nomi at October 9, 2009 12:25 PM

But in all reality, if it is a 96yo grandmother living in the apartment, there's absolutely nothing the owner can do if she meets and marries her 24 yo lover and he moves into her place. That 24yo is now paying $325 a month for the next 70 years.

The above situ is a little far-fetched, but a 45yo third cousin twice removed and her 14yo son moving in w/ "Nana" isn't that far-fetched.

Posted by: crazypants at October 9, 2009 1:01 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions