Forum
« Lead Test must try restaurant »
July 31, 2009
No Rent Reduction: Stay or Go?
So I live in Crown Heights literally on the "real" border (Washington) with Prospect Heights. I pay $1500 for a 1 BR in an owner occupied building. The first time I renewed my lease there was a 3% increase to my current rent. When it was time to renew last year he wanted to increase rent again because of increased expenses ( heat, electricity for common areas) on his end. In the end he didnt cause I was a "good tenant". My landlord has been ok though he has been slow to fix issues or with the sink, toilet and even ignored problems and with the roof.
This year I had a sick family member staying with me for a few months. My landlord knew about it in advance and hasnt said anything. Its time to renew again so I sent a letter asking for rent reduction of $75 per month and allowing me to have a cat ( an issue I have raised with my landlord before). My landlord said no to the cat. Further he said I should consider myself lucky that he isnt raising my rent given the added expenses of another occupant in the apartment.
In the past, the apartment I have was below market. Because of the rental market however that is no longer the case. In the last month I have seen many just as affordable apartments in CH, PH and CH. My current landlord keeps wanting to increase the rent and is often slow making repairs. I am thinking about finding a 1.5 BR (should the sick family member still need to stay with me) in the same area I live in now. But given my family situation I am not so sure about signing a year lease with my current landlord . I would be more willing to sign the year lease if there was something to keep me (space, additional savings, pet).
Am I being reasonable? Part of me is really tempted to leave but when I think about the hassle of moving I rethink it. On the otherhand I dont think my landlord (who is a first time owner-landlord) has really thought about the cost of repainting, repairs that have been ignored etc needed to prepare for a new tenant. Anyone have tips for negotiating with my current landlord? If not what do you Brownstoners think: should I stay or go?
Comments
Aside from the hassle factor, couldn't you move and be happier somewhere else for the cost of what the landlord may raise your rent, assuming it's $75-100 a month??
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 31, 2009 9:06 AM
"I should consider myself lucky that he isnt raising my rent given the added expenses of another occupant in the apartment."
I think he makes a valid point.
Most contracts state the number of occupants to a dwelling. Any added person surely causes a rise in expenses on your end and ultimately his.
I think your being overly expectant on this-
Ask for the cat, drop the $75 thing, be happy he's not harassing you on your friend being there.
Posted by: Brooklynchimp at July 31, 2009 9:18 AM
This isn't San Antonio, TX or where-ever. You can have up to two legal persons living with you if there is only one person on the lease. That is why a lot of management companies won't allow two names on the lease (boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife, partner/partner), otherwise, you can have four people living legally with two names on the lease.
As for guests, well, they're guests and I am not certain on the maximum number of days they can stay if a)they are family or b)they are friends.
Should have asked $100 off - the $75 isn't enough in this economy. If your lease would have ended in this Nov., I would ask $200 off.
Posted by: CookieCutterBrownstone at July 31, 2009 9:40 AM
If I were you I'd move for the cat alone. It sounds as if you want to.
Posted by: Arkady at July 31, 2009 9:40 AM
The added expense of another occupant is incidental. The fact that the other person was a family member is allowed by law.
Posted by: modsquad at July 31, 2009 9:42 AM
Unless the apartment is not stabilized. Possibly in this case it isn't. Not sure and it's too hot to bother to look up.
Posted by: modsquad at July 31, 2009 9:47 AM
$1500 for a 1 bedroom in Crown Hts seems awefully high right now (unless of course it's a really nice place) The LL is probably hedging his bets that you will just stay and pay his increase because of the impending hassle of finding a new apt, and moving, all while caring for your sick relative. I say move.
Posted by: CTG at July 31, 2009 9:53 AM
Moving is not such a big deal, and there are savings to be had and nicer landlords out there. I say move.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at July 31, 2009 9:57 AM
I would not necessarily have asked for a rent reduction and permission to have a cat at the same time - that probably annoyed him, especially since he gave you a break on raising the rent previously.
I would try to figure out what your priorities are and go from there. If cat is primary, ask him to negotiate on this point and you will pay the rent he requests. Tell him you'd like to compromise and he'll probably be more receptive.
Posted by: squaredrive at July 31, 2009 10:01 AM
I think you're being completely reasonable. The landlord thinks you should consider yourself lucky? Wow. Its not like you have the Partridge family living with you. I would start looking just to see what's out there. Don't rush- but if you find the perfect place (for your situation)- take it.
Posted by: panda10 at July 31, 2009 10:02 AM
Assess you options and do whatever is best for you and your family.
Downsides of moving are the cost, time, and effort involved in the move and the risk that the new place has problems you don't know about (troublesome neighbors, problems with the building that aren't obvious at first, etc.).
You know the downside of staying in your current place.
If you can find a new apt. whose upside (e.g., nicer place, allows cats, cheaper rent, better location) outways the downside of moving, then you'll probably be happier moving.
Posted by: northsloperenter at July 31, 2009 10:02 AM
I don't think u are being unreasonable.. I think ur strongest leg that u have to stand on is the rent reduction. I would approach the landlord and tell him/her that you have found other comparable units in the area for cheaper and u want them to consider a reduction. If they don't then I would move b/c it seems like there are several issues here... find somewhere where u will be much happier. Try to find something that isn't owner-occupied ...Good luck!
Posted by: scarter at July 31, 2009 10:05 AM
It sounds like you are unhappy with your current situation, but not miserable. Start looking at other places. If you find something that you like better, go for it! And if you don't find something you like better, you can stay put for another year or so. It doesn't hurt to look.
Posted by: Kris at July 31, 2009 10:12 AM
you come across as a little high maintenance to me. the whole people get their rents reduced hundreds of dollars im seriously just not buying.. definitely there's some no rent increases and minimal increases, but not the 100s of dollars in rent reduction people are claiming and wanting.
that said, your apartment does sound kind of expensive for where it is..
also cats draw vermin because they need food out all day.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 31, 2009 10:20 AM
If you are going to be miserable, move. Other posters are correct that you may be going from a known situation to one that is absolutely up in the air, in terms of what your next landlord is like, the conditions, neighbors, etc. You'll have to decide what works best for you. It could always be a lot worse.
However, as a small, first time landlord, I've got to say that asking for a $200 reduction is absurd. $1500 for the CH/PH border is the going rate for a floor through in a brownstone, maybe more on the right blocks. I could probably get that way over in Crown Hts proper, if the apartment was spacious and nice enough. While the market may be down, I don't see taxes and heating and other expenses going down. Do you pay separately for hot water? Another person in the apartment really is more expense for the landlord. Perhaps they were slow to fix things, especially like the roof, because money already is tight. While that's not your problem, per se, I think you are paying a fair rate, assuming you have a nice enough place. I'd rather have a live in landlord than some faceless management company that really doesn't care about the apt, just the rent. In the end, if you really are unhappy (and really want a cat)then all the justifications for what you do or don't pay are meaningless, you are unhappy. In that case, move.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 31, 2009 10:32 AM
I've been curious about this as well. Are rents actually being revised downward by substantial amounts? I've heard anecdotes, but haven't seen anything particularly convincing. I'm happy with my current tenants and decided not to raise the rent at all this year, but if somebody asked for a reduction I'd wish them better luck elsewhere. Perhaps the calculus is different in larger buildings.
Posted by: Frederick Law Homestead at July 31, 2009 10:34 AM
Here's the key. It is an owner occupied building. Given the housing stock in that area, it is a smaller building. You're RENTING from the landlord. His no cat verdict is valid. Just because you believe that the market has moved, you want a rent reduction? Move...to an apartment where the rent will be cheaper and you can have a cat and leave the landlord alone.
Posted by: BrooklynIsHome at July 31, 2009 10:40 AM
Get the hell out of there! Now!
***Bid half off peak comps***
Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at July 31, 2009 10:41 AM
"also cats draw vermin because they need food out all day."
Really? From what I have seen cats eat all their food (canned food) in one sitting, leaving nothing in the bowls. I have also heard they are good mousers and are good at getting rid of "vermin". (shakes head, rolls-eyes)
Posted by: CookieCutterBrownstone at July 31, 2009 10:43 AM
Cats do not need food out all day. Fat cats, ignored by their owners, have food left out all day. Healthy cats eat a couple of meals, hunt vermin, sleep, and give their owners lots of love. That's what they do all day.
Posted by: mshook at July 31, 2009 10:45 AM
if a landlord ever told me to consider myself lucky I would move. Doesnt that make you feel like you still live with youre parents? I have never heard of a landlord being able to add to the rent for an added occupent. If you had 3 other people in there they may have legal recourse but with one other person I would tell them to suck it if they tried to add to the rent. And yes you should move
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 10:46 AM
Cats don't draw vermin, they keep it down.
Posted by: dittoburg at July 31, 2009 10:54 AM
Fred
My landlord knocked about 17 percent off
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 10:54 AM
The subtext of this entire tenant-landlord relationship sounds bad. You both have expectations that the other is not fulfilling.
I recommend moving.
Posted by: chuck at July 31, 2009 10:58 AM
To all you first-time landlords, $200/mth isn't unreasonable at all. I'm sure you'll figure that out soon. Plenty of first hand experience with folks who have gotten that much off and more. What you first time landlords will eventually find out as well is that a good tenant is worth keeping instead of all the expenses of cleaning, move-ins/outs, etc. even if its less money per month. BTW - what incremental extra expense, that is so significant, does another tenant have? Lastly, I would imagine rents are going to drop or stay flat for awhile now, unless you think the 5000-7000 new apartments coming on-line throughout this year and next won't have an impact.
Posted by: goodoleboy at July 31, 2009 10:58 AM
I agree with posters who are telling you to start looking. I also think your rent is high, unless your apartment is huge, in great condition with a dishwasher. You don't even have the typical 1.5 bedroom. Until you actually see apartments on the market, you won't know if I'm right, but you have nothing to lose by looking. You should even look at broker fee apartments - you are only looking for comparison sake and don't have to take anything unless it feels like a real deal. It may turn out your current apartment is reasonably priced and you'll stay, but if not, move.
Posted by: CGfan at July 31, 2009 10:58 AM
Remember - Rents are NOT going down in all parts of Brooklyn.
Posted by: SenatorStreet at July 31, 2009 10:59 AM
Senator really? Where is that? In Brownstone Brooklyn I dont see anyplace that rents are not going down
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 11:03 AM
it seems like the only places rents are truly going down are in luxury rentals. flat.
and sorry, i guess i was misinformed about cats and vermin, sorry.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 31, 2009 11:09 AM
Rents are down in Park Slope v. 2007.
I'm looking in exactly the same price range now as then, and instead of seeing big 1 bedroom and small 2 bedroom places I'm seeing big 2 bedroom to small 3 bedroom places.
Posted by: northsloperenter at July 31, 2009 11:16 AM
Yeah, what do you know, robbie? You doggie owner you!
***Bid half off peak comps***
Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at July 31, 2009 11:17 AM
Yes! look for another place right now!
I just signed on a 1.5 br in Carroll Gardens for $1550! It was listed by-owner, so no broker fee. This would have gone for $2100 + broker fee just a year ago!
If you want to stay in Crown Heights, you can probably find a nice 1.5 for $700. If you want to change neighborhoods, you'll be able to find a deal.
Posted by: sufisurfer at July 31, 2009 11:20 AM
Uh, you will not find a nice 1.5 bedroom in Crown Heights for $700...
You can probably find some stuff in the $1100-1400 range.
Posted by: northsloperenter at July 31, 2009 11:23 AM
FWIW, friends of mine just landed a rental in a sumptuous house in PS on primest block for half - yes, half - of what the rent would normally cost, since the LL could not find anyone else. The overwhelming evidence from friends seeking rentals now is that there is a definite softening, and it's a renters market (as well as a buyers one). Of course, look for yourself first, and yes, you need to make sure you find something that works for you. But really, there are lots of other options out there now, and your LL has things mixed up - he's the lucky one to have a good tenant, not the other way around.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at July 31, 2009 11:28 AM
Hello all
Thanks for all the comments.
When I asked for a rent reduction I backed it up with many listings from Craiglist showing 1 BRs in Fort Greene for $1500 and other listings in Prospect Heights and Clinton Hill that were comparable. But for the softening rental market I wouldnt have seen so many listings. I remember how it was in 2005 and 2006 when you had to snatch up anything at that price. Now of course I am not seeing so many affordable pads probably cause all the inventory is snatched up until August 15th. The current apartment is pretty nice in new renovation but not in a brownstone- it has no washer or dryer or any "amenities". Its nice. But not amazing.
I think at this point it would be great to be renting month to month. But he basically was like you can sign the lease for a year or... How likely is it to find a 1.5 BR for $1400-1500 in August or September move in in PH, CH or FG? Whats the likelihood of finding a 2BR in that price range? I am happy on the border of Crown Heights but wouldnt want to move further in cause of my sick family member ( kinda frail).
Anybody have additional thoughts or apartment leads?
Posted by: Acajou at July 31, 2009 11:50 AM
About all you could find for $700 in Crown Heights is a room in an SRO. Let's get real, apartments cost decent dollars just about everywhere. They may be a bit soft in places like Park Slope which were overcharging to begin with, but anecdotal tales aside, in a place near Washington Ave, near all of the new amenities in the Prospect Hts area and the proximity to Park Slope itself, $1500 is not an unreasonable amount, unless the apartment is really subpar. A loss of $2400 would make a huge impact on a small live-in landlord. That's almost a whole winter's worth of oil right there.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 31, 2009 11:54 AM
a friend of mine got a $250 rent reduction, it is happening, although that's the only instance I personally heard. but damn! that's a lotta dough. the OP's LL is playing with fire in this market by not trying harder to keep tenants.
i would look further in crown hts and suurounding areas. your family is frail but i'm not sure what that means in terms of where you live. find place near mass transit.
Posted by: Jimmy Legs at July 31, 2009 11:55 AM
Here are some links for you. You can bookmark them and every time you check get the latest listings.
Craigslist, no fee, prospect heights, 1200-1500, 1 br:
http://bk.ly/gg
Craigslist, no fee, crown heights, 1200-1500, 1 br:
http://bk.ly/gh
Craigslist, no fee, clinton hill, 1200-1500, 1 br:
http://bk.ly/gk
Watch out for ads that are "too good to be true". They could be scams.
There does seem to be a bit of a lull in new apartment listings. I think a lot of September listings will start being advertised next week.
Posted by: northsloperenter at July 31, 2009 12:00 PM
"I have never heard of a landlord being able to add to the rent for an added occupent."
That's EXACTLY what I did when the lady who was renting from me (first-time, small landlord) a few years ago when the lady renting from me moved her boyfriend in and didn't come clean about it. I had it written into the lease rider that any extra tenants over a certain time meant more $$, specifically to deal with people like brickoven. I don't recall the exact amount, but it was fair and not a money-grab. As Montrose points out, an extra tenant uses more water, electricity, heat, etc. There are no free rides.
"If you want to stay in Crown Heights, you can probably find a nice 1.5 for $700."
Uh, no.
Posted by: East New York at July 31, 2009 12:03 PM
Move, sounds like you want to and I think $1500 for a 1bdrm isn't bad - from your letter it's obviously big enough for you AND a sick friend AND a pet. It's also newly renovated AND you're on the actual border of ProsHeights, which means you're where the desirable action is (supermakts, restuarants, bars, etc.) So again $1500 for all of the above is a decent rate.
People in nice, high end,densely populated bldgs who rented at peak times who've paid their rent on time - they're in excellent position to request and get a rent reduction.
OP in a small but decent owner-occupied no frills apt. w/ a new roommate who wants a cat - not so much, IMO.
Posted by: crazypants at July 31, 2009 12:07 PM
From http://www.oag.state.ny.us/bureaus/consumer_frauds/housing_issues.html
APARTMENT SHARING
It is unlawful for a landlord to restrict occupancy of an apartment
to the named tenant in the lease or to that tenant and immediate
family. When the lease names only one tenant, that tenant may share the apartment with immediate family, one additional occupant and the occupant’s dependent children, provided that the tenant or the tenant’s spouse occupies the premises as their primary residence....
A tenant must inform the landlords of the name of any occupant
within 30 days after the occupant has moved into the apartment or within 30 days of a landlord’s request for this information.
Real Property Law § 235-f.
Posted by: Acajou at July 31, 2009 12:20 PM
"an extra tenant uses more water, electricity, heat, etc."
Well, actually, an extra tenant generates heat (constant 98.6 degrees -- higher if they are sick!), so you could always cut them a break on the heating costs...
Posted by: northsloperenter at July 31, 2009 12:25 PM
Eastnewyork
People like me? I have never heard of anything like that or been in the situation. I have also never lived in a place where the building owner could not afford to put in seperate meters and have always paid my own electricity. I guess if the landlord is paying the electricity there should be some sort of compensation.
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 12:29 PM
I pay electricity. Landlord pays heat and hot water.
Posted by: Acajou at July 31, 2009 12:35 PM
Posted by: East New York at July 31, 2009 12:03 PM
You are a douchebag LL for illegally charging your tenant extra rent for having a roommate.
Posted by: CookieCutterBrownstone at July 31, 2009 12:37 PM
Acajou then there is no way in hell you should pay more for an extra person. Its not even a consideration
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 12:41 PM
You would be hard pressed to find a studio anywhere in the five boroughs for $700.
Posted by: Frederick Law Homestead at July 31, 2009 12:44 PM
Well, I stand corrected. Here's a half floor studio in Crown Heights for $700. http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/abo/1296982254.html
And all you have to do is share the bathroom and the kitchen. Awesome!
A floor-through (i.e. two of these SRO studio units) is $1500. And that's over a mile east of where the OP is living in a floor-through for the same price.
Posted by: Frederick Law Homestead at July 31, 2009 12:52 PM
"You are a douchebag LL for illegally charging your tenant extra rent for having a roommate."
It wasn't illegal. I had a perfect right to do this. It was in the lease. The tenant had a perfect right not to sign the lease. She signed it, so she had to abide by the rules, as did I. That's how it works in the grown-up world.
Posted by: East New York at July 31, 2009 12:54 PM
East New York you could be in a lot of trouble of youre "lease" was not compliant with NYS law which it sounds like it was not. You should most likely never post here again. Just disappear........ If you are smart
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 12:57 PM
East New York - "It wasn't illegal. I had a perfect right to do this. It was in the lease..."
Really? Are you serious? Well then, according to your logic and thinking, I can then put "no asians, no blacks, no whites, no women, no men, you have to be over 6' tall, you have to be shorter than 5', ad nauseum.
Your lease broke NY State law. Hence, the douchebag title is you have earned is the least of your problems.
Posted by: CookieCutterBrownstone at July 31, 2009 1:04 PM
"APARTMENT SHARING
It is unlawful for a landlord to restrict occupancy of an apartment to the named tenant in the lease or to that tenant and immediate family. When the lease names only one tenant, that tenant may share the apartment with immediate family, one additional occupant and the occupant’s dependent children, provided that the tenant or the tenant’s spouse occupies the premises as their primary residence..."
But that doesn't say a landlord is prevented from adding extra charges to the rent for additional tenants.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 31, 2009 1:11 PM
"Just disappear........ If you are smart"
"Really? Are you serious? Well then, according to your logic and thinking, I can then put "no asians, no blacks, no whites, no women, no men, you have to be over 6' tall, you have to be shorter than 5', ad nauseum."
"Your lease broke NY State law. Hence, the douchebag title is you have earned is the least of your problems."
You guys are pretty funny.
1. I didn't break the law.
2. Discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, etc. IS illegal. I didn't do anything like that. I included a clause in the lease rider saying any guest who stays beyond a certain period is subject to rent. It's perfectly legal, in fact this clause is included in many standard leases, regardless of your ignorance of such.
3. I've been in Brooklyn my entire life, and I'm not going anywhere. I'll be right here, enjoying my home. Have a great day!
Posted by: East New York at July 31, 2009 1:16 PM
LL's do not have the right to discriminate based on race, creed or color- none of which has anything to do with ENY's lease agreement. I have no idea why you're accusing him of such things- had he thrown the tenant out because she brought in a boyfriend who was of another race, you would have a case but he didn't.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 31, 2009 1:18 PM
ENY -- would you have raised the rent if a child was born to a tenant?
Posted by: northsloperenter at July 31, 2009 1:21 PM
Easy New York slumlords like you take advantage of poor people who dont know the laws.
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 1:21 PM
"Easy New York slumlords like you take advantage of poor people who dont know the laws."
Brickoven, I think you've been baking a little too long. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I've been both renter and a landlord, and I did my homework before becoming the latter. I followed the law. You on the other are not only ignorant of the law, but appear to be generally ignorant.
"ENY -- would you have raised the rent if a child was born to a tenant?"
A child born to the tenant is obviously not an adult roommate. I realize this may all be a bit confusing to you, but try to follow along.
Posted by: East New York at July 31, 2009 1:30 PM
wow, ENY- they are coming out of the woodwork.:-)
Posted by: bxgrl at July 31, 2009 1:31 PM
Kinda harsh calling ENY a douchebag slumlord (please) for mentioning an incident that he provided few details about, and you know even less of the circumstances. Some of you wannabee William Kunstlers need to get all the facts before calling names and telling people to run and hide. Facts that ENY has no reason to disclose, either.
ENY, I love the zen-like calm. Enjoy.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 31, 2009 1:32 PM
Thanks Montrose and bxgrl. It's no big deal. I've got nothing to apologize for, and I know how to handle detractors. For the record, I've had great relationships with the people who've rented w/me. The most recent couple was there 3.5 years, and I didn't raise their rent the last two because they were such great tenants. I'm not trying to pat myself on the back, but I know what it's like on both sides. As long as each party is up front and honest from the start, there shouldn't be any problems.
Posted by: East New York at July 31, 2009 1:41 PM
What's interesting about ENY's rider is that I have never seen an apartment for rent ad where the price was adjusted for the # of tenants.
How often have you seen an ad "1 BR apt., sunny, laundry in building, $1250/mo for 1 tenant, $1400/mo for 2 tenants".
It's just very odd. I once had a roommate move in for a few months and never really thought to discuss it with my landlord. Of course, my landlord was ignoring my maintenance requests, so I guess we were even there...
It may well be legal, and I could see for lower end/rent stabilized places where landlord pays utilities that landlords would be nervous about extra water costs and possibly extra electricity costs.
Oh, which reminds me, that the only rider like this I ever remember was in a place where landlord paid the electricity and added a surcharge if you had an air conditioner (which seemed reasonable).
Posted by: northsloperenter at July 31, 2009 1:47 PM
northsloperenter- It may not be common practice, but ENY was up front about it and it was legal, He certainly doesn't deserve to be called a slumlord or a douchebag for it. Most landlords don't care about a temporary guest- after all its your apartment. You should be allowed to have visitors- but that's certainly different from another tenant.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 31, 2009 1:56 PM
bxgrl -- be that as it may, it is very unusual in NYC and the kind of thing that confuses people and makes them feel as if they might be taken advantage of.
Generally speaking, rents do not get adjusted every time someone's significant other moves in or moves out.
That said, I didn't call him any names, and ENY shouldn't have taken that swipe at brickoven @ 12:03 if he didn't want any backlash.
Posted by: northsloperenter at July 31, 2009 2:28 PM
What ENY is doing is perfectly legal and quite common.
Also, it is absolutely true that cat food can cause horrible roach problems if it is left out. Our upstairs neighbors recently proved this nicely by moving out. The roach population was decimated.
I agree with Montrose and Miss Muffet. You sound unhappy so you should move. However, I think your landlord is being entirely reasonable.
Posted by: mopar at July 31, 2009 2:32 PM
"That said, I didn't call him any names, and ENY shouldn't have taken that swipe at brickoven @ 12:03 if he didn't want any backlash."
You're perfectly right about that nsloperenter, although I really wasn't very preturbed by anything said in our exchange. But if I offended you brickoven, I apologize.
Posted by: East New York at July 31, 2009 2:57 PM
East New York are you sure its legal? I think you had better look into that. New York state rental laws can be brutal! I am sure that you can be sued by the tennant.
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 3:10 PM
my 2 cents- get out your calculator. How long do you plan on staying in one place- 2 yrs, 5 yrs etc..calculate your average cost, figure in your moving expenses, put a dollar value on your desire to have a cat. If your monthly over time is a savings in your pocket, then it's worth while to move. Otherwise, not.
On the defense of LL not wanting cat. He or his family might be allegic. I allowed my tenants to have one cat each, but not everyone kept to just one cat, now the whole house smells. I had no idea my family is allergic until the cats came and now I can't ask them not to be. It's my biggest regret.
There are some additonal costs to having more people in the place. Mainly water (contrary to popular belief, it's not free). It can be additonal $10 to $20 per month per person. I's not much, but it adds up. In the winter, depends on schedules and so on, heat might have to be longer which can be hundreds more each month. One tenant's roommate worked from home, so heat on almost 24/7. Needless to say, he was high maintenance. I find myself breathing easier after he moved.
My tenants have roommates which I have to approved. I check the credit and background for each person. None of the people who wanted the apartment has any problems with that. Once you get them in, it's hard to get them out. I also live in the house and for safety reasons I want to know who I am sharing house with.
Posted by: ClintonHillGal at July 31, 2009 3:11 PM
anybody who thinks charging extra for an additional tennant is Ghetto and a slumlord. I have never heard of anything that. GHETTO
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 3:34 PM
I agree with ClintonHillGal. We had a tenant with a cat and we had to air out the apartment for a week after she left. Cat urine on hard wood floors is a nightmare! After this we no longer allow cats OR dogs for that matter. Our current tenant does have a fish, however. Maybe you should look into a fish, I'm sure your LL wouldn't mind. :)
Posted by: StuyIvy at July 31, 2009 3:37 PM
10 dollars extra a month per person for water bill. Here is 20 go buy some happy meals for the youre family. You are breaking the law!
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 3:38 PM
LOL Are you trying to get a rise out of all the landlord posters on a friday before rent day?
Can you book a 1 bedroom suite in Trump Plaza for a week and have 5 people stay with you all week?
Posted by: jack slade at July 31, 2009 3:49 PM
Jack nothing gives me more comfort then to be paying rent and not holding a rapidly declining asset class. I pay my rent 5 days early and I pay it with a smile. This RE market is so bubbled out that you have landlords who dont even know rental laws. Ya'll are GHETTO 10 dollars extra for water BWHAHAAHA
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 3:54 PM
5 days early? good job Brick. But doesnt mean you can do as you please. Did you sneak your family in?
Posted by: jack slade at July 31, 2009 4:08 PM
What East New York did IS illegal. Basic law is that a contract not in compliance with the law is not valid. So just because it's in the contract doesn't make it legal since it's against the Real Property Law stated above. For example, you can't have a contract with someone to steal a car for you. Also, just because "people do it all the time" doesn't make it legal. You just got over on someone who didn't realize they were being cheated. Restricting occupancy correlates with raising the rent. Your restriction the tenants ability to live there if they can't/won't pay the additional rent you are requesting.
Anyway, if at the time you did it you thought it was legal, fair enough, but now you know it's not.
Posted by: Tdeezy at July 31, 2009 4:09 PM
I suggest everyone read exactly what the law said. Note- it says nothing about preventing a landlord form adding a surcharge in another tenant moves in. So its not illegal. Small landlords are in a different position than a big one. Many of them live in their property, with their tenants. Many of them aren't clearing big profits by any stretch. The bank is not lowering their payments, the electric and gas companies are increasing fees, the city charges for water usage- So what you're saying is that the landlord should lose money and possibly his property to subsidize a tenant? I'm sorry but let's be fair about things. You may not agree with ENY but he certainly doesn't deserve the comments thrown at him. He and the tenant made an agreement- how that winds up being equivalent to practically tossing them out I will never know.
N.sloperenter- I know you weren't the one calling names. Didn't mean to imply that at all. That said, ENY's reply about a 700$ studio was one of several, all saying the same thing. Nothing was that inflammatory.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 31, 2009 4:28 PM
Jack sneak my family in? I know that I can have as many people living in my apt. as the code allows if I wanted without being charged anything addional. Its the law! Just to close out here I think you slumlords had better pay for a small consultation with a real estate lawyer it may save you some money. I also hope that youre tenants dont read this blog
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 4:29 PM
Don't sweat it bxgrl. Let them go on. They seem to be having a good time.
Posted by: East New York at July 31, 2009 4:34 PM
Per NYS law, it is illegal to charge more for an additional person who moves into the apartment. However, most of these NYS rent laws only apply to buildings with more than 4 rental units. So if East New York only has one unit downstairs, he is free to do as he pleases in this regard.
Posted by: Kris at July 31, 2009 4:36 PM
Kris are you willing to bet youre license to practice in NYS on that?
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 4:42 PM
I'm not a broker, but I know from my own experiences renting in NYC that people who rent out a portion of their own home have a lot more leeway with the law. And with good reason -- it is their home, after all. There's evidence all over state and city law. Feel free to read up on it yourself.
Posted by: Kris at July 31, 2009 4:58 PM
Oh so youre not a RE lawyer gotcha
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 5:01 PM
And you are?
Posted by: Kris at July 31, 2009 5:07 PM
NO
Posted by: brickoven at July 31, 2009 5:19 PM
I bet they do read this blog Brick but the cooler thing is they all know where the exit door is. No fear here!
Posted by: jack slade at July 31, 2009 5:34 PM
It seems as if you and said LL are both unreasonable i.e. you seem to want more for practically nothing extra ( bring in a pet and a sick family member all while having to pay less rent...the audacity of hope:) and LL is kind of arrogant in saying you should feel lucky.
$1500 may indeed be expensive today but we don't know the kind of space you have. Is it really nice or large? The area is not bad given proximity to Prospect Park, Subways, and the Brooklyn Museum.
Maybe he can let you have a cat without increasing the rent but remember you are already doing quite well with the family member staying long term or even permanently. Does the law allow the extra person staying permanently? In a non rent stabilized building? Our advice will be to move if you are gonna be miserable.
The LL appears to have leverage in your specific situation since he doesn't seem to mind you moving right?
Posted by: pierre de taille at July 31, 2009 6:02 PM
Brickoven, the law is about your right to have a lover and children. The landlord is free to charge whatever they like for the apt -- whether it's less for one adult, more for two, or vice versa.
Posted by: mopar at July 31, 2009 6:03 PM
brxgrl we are renters as well so what you say is hard to swallow but we are afraid you are 100% right...wow the truth can be tough :( Thanks for the clarity.
"I suggest everyone read exactly what the law said. Note- it says nothing about preventing a landlord form adding a surcharge in another tenant moves in. So its not illegal. Small landlords are in a different position than a big one. Many of them live in their property, with their tenants. Many of them aren't clearing big profits by any stretch. The bank is not lowering their payments, the electric and gas companies are increasing fees, the city charges for water usage- So what you're saying is that the landlord should lose money and possibly his property to subsidize a tenant? I'm sorry but let's be fair about things".
Posted by: pierre de taille at July 31, 2009 6:15 PM
yes it does cost extra 10 to 20 dollars for water per person per month. I do not charge my tenant extra when she has a roommate by the same token I don't give her a discount either when she does not. I take care of it. Does not mean the cost is not there. There are no free lunches, someone has to pay. Maybe you don't realized this- some expenses are constant (fix mortgage for example), some expenses varies. Simple concept, more flushes, more showers = more cost to landlords (small building or large makes no difference).
Posted by: ClintonHillGal at July 31, 2009 6:38 PM
^------- great point!
"...I do not charge my tenant extra when she has a roommate by the same token I don't give her a discount either when she does not..."
This isn't directed at anybody in particular ;) but the LL's that "charge" extra for roommates; do you also deduct when they get rid of their roommates and live alone?
Posted by: CookieCutterBrownstone at July 31, 2009 7:22 PM
$750 for a one bedroom apartment in Crown Heights? Absolutely! In 1994.
Clearly, you don't know the market.
Posted by: BrooklynIsHome at July 31, 2009 9:24 PM
I've always had at least one cat my entire life and never had a mice problem. Or a roach problem either. But then I perform the all important task of putting away MY food and not leaving dirty dishes out. That's what brings roaches. As do filthy neighbors or a past tenant in your apt leaving food out causing the roaches to become established there.
On rent reductions my friend got a $100 reduction without even asking for it.
Posted by: traditionalmod at August 2, 2009 1:03 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.