Forum
« Speed bump in our livingroom! 18 inch Dishwashers »
December 29, 2008
RENEGOTIATING THE RENT
A simple question.
Our lease expires in march.
We live in a brownstone duplex for $2095.00 a month in Bed Stuy.
However the building next door has been completely burnt out in a recent fire and is vacant.
We accepted our lease without these severe circumstances.
Our quality of life has changed drastically.
The house next door has been completely boarded up.
No renovations are scheduled.
Our house smells like smoke for months.
We are not willing to pay the current rent with a building next door that collects rodents, stray cats and crack heads.
What is a reasonable discount on the new lease? Please your advise. Thank you all.
Comments
Whatever you can negotiate with the landlord. It costs you to move, it costs them to get a new tenant. Rents in general will be heading down in 2009, in my personal opinion.
Posted by: denton at December 29, 2008 9:54 PM
You could always start collecting rodents, stray cats and crack heads. It would be an interesting conversation starter.
Posted by: gennaro at December 29, 2008 10:11 PM
keeping in mind the landlord is thinking in opposite terms: should I raise the rent or not, you could easily "meet in the middle" and "negotiate" to keep it where it is. Just that would be a change from the norm.
But since you've got the rodent crack addicts next door I'd propose 1800 and be happy if you settle below 2000. This is New York after all. Rents going down?!? OMG!!
Posted by: gennaro at December 29, 2008 10:15 PM
Rents seem to be all over the place for Bed Stuy. So I would go on craigs list and find comps for the neighborhood that are on the low end and on the high end, and see where you fall.
I am guessing you are going to be in the middle, and that you are going to find comparable lowball rents in the $1700-1800 range, as well as snazzy places in the $2400 range.
I'd briefly state the problem as you do above, focusing on the quality of the house/block post-fire rather than the drag of living through the fire itself. It's just much more germane to the rent issue, and you don't wind up looking like a whiner. Then offer the landlord the lowest comp you find, briefly explain that you arrived at this price with comps, and know how far you'll be willing to move up in price in order not to move.
Good for you for thinking about it. Proactive.
Posted by: vanburenproud at December 30, 2008 7:30 AM
Dutchman
How dare you think you can negotiate the lease down due to circumstances that are beyond the landlords control. As a landlord, I am appalled that you think you have the right because the house next door burned down and got boarded up! He doesn't own that house. He owns the one you rent! He can't make them fix their house. You can report it to 311 to file a complaint so they can contact the owner to try to make them keep it clean etc but, your landlord is not at fault.
You can ask for no increase due to the circumstances but to go down is ridiculous. You could never get a duplex in a brownstone for less than that anywhere! Would you negotiate down in Park Slope, Carrol Gardens......
How would you feel if you were a landlord? It was good enough to be in before the fire. If your lease is up and you don't like it anymore, MOVE!
Posted by: Brooklyn Butterfly at December 30, 2008 9:15 AM
I think you should move if you can.
The burning out of the next door building has probably flooded your place with chemicals. If you can smell the smoke, then you are inhaling particles from the burned building. If you have kids, it's even more of an issue.
I don't think there are any real comps here. You won't see an ad on craigslist that says:
Charming Duplex next to burnt out building infested with rats and crackheads.
I would find the lowest priced duplex on craigslist, then subtract $500 for health and safety, which will probably bring you to around $1000 - 1200 a month.
Brooklyn is a big place -- for $2095 you can get something better.
* * *
"But since you've got the rodent crack addicts next door I'd propose 1800 and be happy if you settle below 2000. This is New York after all. Rents going down?!? OMG!!"
Don't listen to this.
Posted by: theandrewlee at December 30, 2008 9:35 AM
"You could never get a duplex in a brownstone for less than that anywhere!"
This appears to be a false statement.
http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/abo/972450645.html
Posted by: theandrewlee at December 30, 2008 10:08 AM
I can only assume Brooklyn Butterfly is joking...
If you are a good tenant (don't bitch all the time, keep the house clean and send the check on time every month) the landlord will lower the price. Find some ads for comparable apartments and show them to your landlord. Ask for the rent to be reduced to a comparable market rate minus something for the crappy conditions you described (completely irrelevant whether it's the landlord's fault - it's his risk). So for example if you can find a few ads for similar apartments for 1900, then ask for 1750 or 1800. Be very polite about it and point out that you will move if he doesn't agree. Again, if you are a good tenant the landlord will agree to this (if he's not an idiot).
Posted by: lechacal at December 30, 2008 10:14 AM
Thank you for your responds.
To an appalled Brooklyn Butterfly: If an agreement is finished I do have the right to discuss anything I desire. You make it seem I am abusing the situation while in fact both parties will take a blow. One in living the other in the compensation.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing the rent. The negotiation position of the landlord has changed dramatically due to the fact that the value of living for the tenant has changed as well. Its a free market.
Posted by: dutchman at December 30, 2008 10:17 AM
I'm interested in the details about the place you're renting for $2,095. You say its a duplex...how many bedrooms and bathrooms and square footage? Thanks
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 30, 2008 10:21 AM
hmmm this is a tough one. I tend to agree with the sentiment that your landlord doesn't have any control over the building next door and perhaps you and your landlord together can file complaints against the abanonded building. I do think you have some negotiating room especially if you have been a good tenant who pays rent on time. I would think asking for $100 less a month is feasible, but you could always move to another apartment for less money in Bed Stuy....
Posted by: gemini10 at December 30, 2008 10:31 AM
What is the current rental market for smoke filled, soot smelling, rat infested, crack addict attracting, neighbors w/ boarded up windows apartments in Brooklyn? It seems to me, if what you are saying is reality, even $1.00 / month seems a bit high. My advice, with respects to the "The Amityville Horror" - GET OUT!
Posted by: sjtmd at December 30, 2008 10:35 AM
Wanting to re-negotiate the rent because the circumstances have changed is reasonable, but the responsiveness of your LL will depend on whether you have a good relationship and how you approach him/her. Like many people here have pointed out, it's not the LL's fault that the house next door burnt down. Seriously, if you're even considering staying after your "quality of life has changed drastically" then there is either something pretty redeeming about the place or it's not that bad. You ARE in a position to negotiate but you still have to be prepared to move because you're "not willing to pay the current rent". Your LL might not want to budge either.
Posted by: herkimermaid at December 30, 2008 11:42 AM
I'd start looking for other apartments in January. If you find one you like better, just move -- it's worth it even if it costs a bit more at the beginning. If you'd like, you can go to your current landlord and explain why you are moving and see if he will lower your rent significantly, but definitely have a moving option in mind. If you look at apartment (not on Craig's List -- actually visit them to see) and you find you still have a good deal despite the abandoned building, you at least will know that going into your negotiations for a new lease. I think anything over $2,000/month seems high in Bed Stuy unless you have a giant renovated apartment.
Posted by: CGfan at December 30, 2008 12:42 PM
CGFan has the right approach. You don't like the externalities now associated with your apartment, but at the same time I assume there is some reason you want to stay (e.g., no moving costs, no brokers' fees, relative location, just the plain hassle). Frankly, I'd just move because your next door building is not going to improve in the next year, so why hang around?
In any event, assuming you do want to stay, I'd go ahead and look around in early Jan at other places, and then talk with your LL about moving because of the burnt out building.. You can say you have seen some places that are suitable, but want to avoid the costs associated with moving and because you have a good relationship with the current LL (assuming that's accurate).
For example, assume that moving costs are about $1000 and the brokers' fee is another $2000. Even if a new apartment that was suitable is the same as your current rent, that gives you $3,000 you'd like to save by not moving. So start negotiating at least $250 or 300 below your current rent.
Posted by: Boerumresident at December 30, 2008 1:03 PM
If conditions are truly that bad...move out! The fact that you want to neg. the rent means that you are willing to deal with these issues....in other words...its not that bad!
Posted by: landlord at December 30, 2008 2:45 PM
I am astounded at the opinions of landlord, BB, etc, who are suggesting that the OP should either move or put up with the decrease in value of their home.
Speaking as a landlord myself, I factor the neighborhood into the rent. Who doesn't? And if a pretty tree-lined block, proximity to trains and amenities = more rent, then why shouldn't a burned-out shell that collects criminals and vagrants = less rent?
If I were the landlord in this case, I would feel like I had dodged a bullet if a good tenant asked me to renegotiate rent instead of just moving out. Money aside, can you imagine how hard it's going to be to find a decent tenant who doesn't mind living next to a burned-out building?
Posted by: vanburenproud at December 30, 2008 3:29 PM
vanburenproud, "And if a pretty tree-lined block, proximity to trains and amenities = more rent, then why shouldn't a burned-out shell that collects criminals and vagrants = less rent?"
Crack-heads are people too!
Posted by: GHB at December 30, 2008 5:27 PM
Move. Why do you want to negotiate downwards? Just move.
If I were the landlord, I wouldn't want to negotiate downwards. They probably feel frustrated themselves. If you don't like it there, really, just move.
Posted by: donatella at December 30, 2008 6:07 PM
My limited experience as a renter in Brooklyn for the past 6 years is that rents go up and down with the market. A place (one and a half bedroom floor through in a brownstone-- it had a very small second bedroom with a window but no closet) I rented in Brooklyn Heights dropped from $2400 a month for a two-year lease in the summer of 2001 to $1800 in the summer of 2003. The market changed and so did the rent -- though, admittedly, we rented the place for the first time in 2003, we just knew the prior rent. Then, when time came to renew in 2005, the landlord was able to raise the rent back to $2400; we were moving for other reasons, and he expressed some willingness to only raise it to $2000 or $2100 if we were to stay, but when we left, he was able to get $2400 again. This is all to say that long-time landlords -- at least in my experience -- are accustomed to rents going both up and down for a variety of reasons. Asking for a reduction because of your changed circumstances, nicely . . . assuming you'd like to stay, can't hurt.
Posted by: slyone at December 30, 2008 7:41 PM
Honestly Donatella, if you were in a similar situation you would rather attempt to find someone new? Someone who:
1. Doesn't mind living next to a burned-out building and the increase in crime and vermin it represents
2. and will simultaneously be a good tenant
3. even though the rent is on the mid-to-high side for the neighborhood?
I don't know the OP, but I do know that I would take a monthly hit in order to keep a *known* good tenant if the neighborhood will definitely be looking grim for a couple of years.
Posted by: vanburenproud at December 30, 2008 7:42 PM
Dutchman do you like to smoke crack? Because that should also be a consideration.
Seriously, though, who cares if it is the landlords fault or not, he or she now has a property next to a burnt out shell and they need to adjust their rents accordingly or possibly lose tenants. It is simple economics.
Posted by: gennaro at December 30, 2008 9:49 PM
I gave this a serious "what if this happened to me" consideration, and I have to come down closer to the side of Brooklyn Butterfly for the following reasons. While the burned out building is not the landlord's fault, he/she is the main sufferer here. Their mortgage carrier doesn't care that they live next to a burned out shell, they are not going to get a cut in their mortgage payment for the decrease in the property value or decrease in quality of life. The city isn't going to lower their taxes, their oil company isn't going to cut them a break on fuel, ConEd will not be sending a rebate check for smoke damage.
While a boarded up shell is certainly not something I'd be happy with, I don't think it automatically becomes a drug invested crack house over night. That's a bit reactionary. The landlord here,with the cooperation of hopefully, the burned out building's owner, as well as the police, the community board, and local block association, if there is one, can successfully make sure that does not happen. It takes some vigilance, but it's doable. A local crack house, if there still is one around, is just as likely to be in an "open" house, even crackheads like a roof over their heads. This is not 1992, either.
Which has to beg the question, if living there now will be such a fall, such a lessening in quality of life, then why is it acceptable if it is cheaper? If the smoke and potential danger to life and limb is unacceptable at the current rate, what makes it acceptable for a cheaper rate? If the answer is only money, then there is no real fear of crackheads, et al, and it would seem that the tenant is just trying to take advantage of a bad situation. If the landlord is magnanimous enough to cut the tenant a break for smoke damage, etc, that's great. I don't see why they need to do more than that. If the conditions are that bad, then the tenant should move out. The landlord's options are much more limited.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 31, 2008 11:15 AM
Again thank you for all your input. It has been of great help.
@ montrose morris:
If my lease is up and the market got sky high a landlord will raise the rent. Isn't that a rule of the free market: trying to take advantage of any situation?
I bought on christmas toys on sale: trying to take advantage of a bad situation. So what.
Quality of life has its price. Accepting to take a lesser quality for less doesnt mean my arguments loose their validity. Otherwise I'd simply move out and not talk at all.
I will keep you posted.
For now wishing all landlords, tenants, brokers, agents and other Brownstone readers a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!
Posted by: dutchman at December 31, 2008 1:01 PM
What are your choices? Your set of choices is your leverage. It is my opinion that rents are falling. Condos are converting and dumping on an already declining rental market. Shop around and have some opportunities in hand come March. If you are a good tenant your landlord would be foolish not to deal.
***Bid half off peak comps***
Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at December 31, 2008 5:22 PM
I think MM's point was that the landlord is the real person suffering. Not only is their quality of life affected, but their property value as well. But not their expenses. If you and the landlord have a decent relationship, they'll probably negotiate but not if you act like it's owed to you. Quality of life issues are iffy since there is no set agreement on what it is or how much anyone has a right to expect. But hyping the situation (rat, cat and crackhead infested bldg- when that's a projection) will, as one poster said, make you sound like a whiner. And your landlord may not have a lot of wiggle room as it is- his expenses are not going down because the fire next door so be a little understanding of his situation too.
Posted by: bxgrl at December 31, 2008 6:44 PM
Rents are coming down all over New York City. I am not begging anything with my landlord for a rent decrease. The second I find something cheaper and better I am running out of hear like a thief. You know if the housing market had not crashed your landlord would be outside your door saying. I need to raise your rent because rents are going up. No dah! Landlords should give tests before calling themselves homeowners.
Posted by: hannible at January 2, 2009 9:47 AM
In response to VanBuerenproud, I am a wildwoman when it comes to protecting my house and my tenants and living in a beautiful environment. I demand it for myself and for my tenants. I would be Xena Warrior princess about a burned out building next door, not sitting around passively letting vermin and garbage bother me and my tenants and threaten my investment. I would befriend the owner next door (if not already), partner with neighbors, police and work with DOB and not passively -- though my various brownstone adventures, I have learned how to complain and be effective. So if you are asking about me, if I was unable to deal with the situation, and was at the end of my rope (not likely), I would hope that my tenant would move rather than endure a substandard place. But as I said I would not expect my tenants to endure something that I couldn't stand. My bank would have some interest in working with me as well.
Posted by: donatella at January 2, 2009 11:51 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.