BTW, I am thinking that the Methadone clinic on Waverly should be moved to Park Slope. They have the amenities to continue to be desirable and withstand the negative stigma of the clinic.

Unfortunately for Waverly and Fulton, that's not the case. Not enough neighborhood amenities.

Posted by: InvestorLlew at September 29, 2009 2:13 PM in response to 925 Fulton In Turnaround

I do agree that Park Slope still improved although there was a Methadone clinic on 8th Ave and 5th Street.

However, I would say that it improved INSPITE of the Methadone clinic.

When you have a wonderful amenity like Prospect Park and all the benefits you get from it, even a Methadone clinic could not stop the improvement of the neighborhood.

I would suggest, however, we have another example where a Methadone clinic had an opposite effect or where there are not enough neighborhood amenities to counteract the effects of such a clinic.

Posted by: InvestorLlew at September 29, 2009 2:05 PM in response to 925 Fulton In Turnaround

I spoke with the "Country Inn Diner" people and they told me that some of the addicts come in once in a while.

They caught an addict stealing tips from the table.

BTW, can anyone point to any statistics on the success of addicts after Methadone treatment? Does it actually work?

Posted by: InvestorLlew at September 29, 2009 1:50 PM in response to 925 Fulton In Turnaround

Personally, given that many LandLords and Management companies in NYC may do a Court check to find a Tenant/LandLord dispute, you stand the chance of being blacklisted from some apartments. Even if you are in the right.

I had a tenant that I evicted who called me up once and asked me if there is a way I can remove the Court case on her record because she couldn't get into an apartment that did a check on her.

Incidentally, I understand that some Co-ops do that check as well.

Posted by: InvestorLlew at September 29, 2009 1:36 PM in response to 30-Day Notice Req'd?

I'm a Real Estate Investor for over 10 years in Brooklyn and I have to say that I remembered having met with developers around Bed-Stuy trying to sell buildings without a full C of O.

I may be too conservative an Investor, but I always avoid situations where it is potentially possible for a building to be delivered with out one.

I remembered what surprised me mostly was that the developers had an association with Mortgage companies that allowed closings to occur without a full C of O, just a TCO. That's a practice that did not sit well with me. Too much room for collusion and corruption.

Now, here's the other problem I had. There seems to be a lot of workers in the DOB which come from the same religious back ground as the Developers. I always wondered how many of the developers were able to get permits for developing what I deemed to be illegal dwellings.

Personally, I think the DOB needs to be looked at carefully to see what are the relationships between the employees and the developers. I am almost sure that these are not "Arms length" (meaning no relationship) encounters and transactions.

Wasn't there a large amount of corruption that was exposed recently in New Jersey between the politicians, DOB and developers? Either case, all of this kept me away from those developments.

I was hoping that the owners of the Spencer Street developments would have an opportunity to expose the DOB's corruption, but it seems that the owners are generally happy with the developments other than the fact that there isn't a C of O.

So what happens is that the potential corruption can get buried and never investigated. The Application forms submitted to the DOB to build taller for Educational students will be forgotten even after you discover that almost none of the units were purchased by students/teachers, and the developer will be able to wash his hands clean of the dirt without losing any of the money he collected from the very owners who purchased his condos.

It goes to show you that the corruption is systematic and unfortunate for a lot of the owners, the Government won't pursue it further and they don't have the money and will to start their own investigation.

Posted by: InvestorLlew at September 23, 2009 4:05 PM in response to Subpoena for Fraudulent Spencer St Developer

Hi Streetwise. Unless I am reading the OP incorrectly, he says "received my real estate broker's license awhile back, but never used it."

The OP, BKed, also writes further down, "I think there is a misunderstanding, I am not an agent, I am a licensed real estate broker."

So, what I am wondering is why are so many posters here thinking that BK is not a Broker but an AGENT who needs a Brokerage to hold his license? HE IS A BROKER.

Therefore, he can split the commission as a co-broke.

So, unless someone can tell me that a BROKER needs to have his license held by a Brokerage firm, BKed should be good to go to split the commission.

The only other thing would be if BK is not a full Broker but an Associate Broker. If that's the case, then he would need his license held by a Brokerage. BUT NOT IF HE IS A FULL LICENSED BROKER as he indicated TWICE.

Posted by: InvestorLlew at September 3, 2009 1:47 AM in response to Co-broking for Myself

I don't think the previous comments answered the OP's question. For some reason, it seems that people don't read well.

Anyway, you'll find the answer in this blog.

http://curbed.com/archives/2007/07/27/ask_curbed_im_out_of_the_broker_game_or_am_i.php

"ABSOLUTELY YES, A BROKER CAN CO BROKE IN A SITUATION IN WHICH HE/SHE IS PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION.

See Liuzzi v. Negro, 109 Misc2d 526 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1981). says that licensed real estate brokers are not prohibited from receiving commissions in transactions in which they are a party.

ANY, AND I MEAN ANY BROKER WHO TELLS YOU DIFFERENTLY IS NOT ONLY VIOLATING CODE OF ETHICS, THEY ARE VIOLATING NEW YORK LAW."

Hope this helps.

Posted by: InvestorLlew at September 2, 2009 8:38 PM in response to Co-broking for Myself

I have over 15 apts in 5 buildings in Brooklyn and have owned rentals for over 11 years.

I have a good relationship with all my tenants. I even go out on occasion to restaurants with them and some have invited me to go on their vacations. I throw a "residents party" in one of my tenant's apts once a year during the summer so they get to know each other.

In fact, one happens to be a personal injury lawyer. Also, 1/4 my residents are Lawyers.

It's a matter of separating out your personal from your business.

The way I think of it, if you have a friend who is renting, and you explain why you need to raise the rent for what ever the reason and it is legitimate... increased heating, taxes, etc. then a friend would be agreeable to the increase. If not, then what kind of friend is it?

However, if you give no explanation, then your friend may believe that you are just raising the rent because of greed. I also make it a point to always raise rents. Even in years where I don't need the extra cashflow, I will ask for a 1% or 2% raise, giving specific dollar increases or maintanence costs, expense increases, etc. I also always compare my market rent increases to the DHCR increases and let my tenants know that I'm here to support them should my rental increases are below the DHCR increases for that year.

I will also say that now that we are in a severe downturn, all my tenants are staying put mainly because they have a wonderful relationship with me. I take care of my residents (notice, I don't call them tenants) and they in turn feel a loyalty and know that many other landlords will treat them more like tenants and not residents or customers.

It's wonderful to be in a housing down turn where rents are dropping but my rent roll still moves up overall.

What's funny is now that the weather is really crazy, I remembered last winter it snowed twice in 1 day, I went over to shovel the snow on one of my properties on the 2nd time it snowed that day. Really weird weather.

The Husband of a couple came out of my building and told me his wife fell down while walking out the building earlier, before I had a chance to clear the snow the 2nd time that day. He laughed hard when he remembered it and thanked me for being such a great landlord for shoveling the snow. His wife was perfectly fine as she fell on her bum and that everything is ok with her!

I can only imagine what would have happened had the residents hated me. How much money do I actually save in defending myself or even losing a personal injury lawsuit because the Judge is sympathetic to tenants? How much stress in my life as a landlord is minimized by just being nice and doing what I am suppose to do?

I look back at a lot of these small incidents and I say to myself, I'm glad I'm a customer oriented, relationship oriented LandLord.

Also, because I have a lot of Lawyers in my building, they will tell me when I have a possibility of negligence. I immediately address and take care of the problems. The way not to get sued is just not to be negligent. Residents who are lawyers can be incredibly helpful.

But I'm sure most landlords will not agree with me, though I really don't know why. It would be nice to hear from both tenants and LandLords.

Posted by: InvestorLlew at August 28, 2009 12:25 PM in response to Renting to a Friend

I have rented to three friends and currently have one upstairs. I prefer having a friend in the building where I live for a number of reasons. All the silly things you might worry about like a friend expecting she can paint the walls neon green or never paying rent never come to pass. What does happen is that a friend takes care of your place, watches out for safety issues, will take the mail in and put the trash out when you aren't around and generally doesn't act like she has no stake in whether the building falls down or not. I also let my dog wander the halls secure that my tenants won't complain and will watch out for him as he patrols.

The downside is that if my friends want to leave the building before a lease is up I let them go. But frankly, its hardly worth pursuing tenants who break leases in NY's housing court anyway.

I have an acquaintance who said the water pipe in her building's basement broke and the tenant just left a message for the landlord and went out leaving the basement flooding. That is my horror story of tenants.

Posted by: breukelenbelle at August 28, 2009 1:09 PM in response to Renting to a Friend

I have 2 rentals upstairs I rent out. One is to person I met in college (35 years ago). So I see no serious problem.
My mistake has been keeping the rent too low.
I would say you have to have good sense of you and your friends personality - both good and bad - and being self-critical is tough. How demanding, entitled is the friend...when you go to restaurant are they often finding fault with food/service never satisfied?
How about you? Often critical of how other people keep their apts, kitchens, find most people irresponsible, and do friends consider you controlling?

Posted by: Petebklyn at August 28, 2009 1:29 PM in response to Renting to a Friend

Petebklyn- I am a perfect human being with almost no flaws so I make it easy for Montrose :-) (and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you).

But seriously, everything you said is right.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 28, 2009 2:02 PM in response to Renting to a Friend

Thank you everyone for your helpful and thoughtful responses. I didn't realize how common and often positive this situation actually is. I'll definitely reassess some of my thinking and have an honest conversation with my friend.

Posted by: New Owner at August 28, 2009 5:12 PM in response to Renting to a Friend

Thank you everyone for your helpful and thoughtful responses. I didn't realize how common and often positive this situation actually is. I'll definitely reassess some of my thinking and have an honest conversation with my friend.

Posted by: New Owner at August 28, 2009 5:13 PM in response to Renting to a Friend

I've never owned apts as a LL but in my 20's I owned a big house with an extra room to rent. I had 3 roomates over 10 years. 2 were good friends and both of them were awesome to have as my tenants/roomates. 1 was a stranger, a friend of a friend, and was a complete disaster. He painted the ceiling of the room black without asking, never cleaned up after himself in the kitchen, dragged an upright piano (also without asking if he could have it in the house) across my newly refinished hardwood floors leaving huge scratches, hit the neighbor's car with his car and years later I learned he never followed through with paying for the damage. A friend may expect favors sometimes but at least you know a friend well enough to know they aren't crazy. You never know if a stranger is crazy or not. This guy was a Princeton graduate, had money, seemed normal, but was a spoiled rotten brat sociopath. A credit check wouldn't have shown that. It would only be by knowing the guy somebody would be aware how irresponsible he was.

Posted by: traditionalmod at August 28, 2009 8:38 PM in response to Renting to a Friend

Renting to a friend/family that wouldn't qualifiy otherwise is a big NO NO. But if you say that she is a "responsible" person that you've known for years then consider it. Just be warned when it comes to rent increases, house rules etc. of the potential awkwardness, if you think it's not worth risking your friendship then take the advice of the others and tell her to find somewhere else.

Posted by: Crownlfc at August 28, 2009 11:28 PM in response to Renting to a Friend

Your license is void if there is not a broker holding it for you. So unless you have a broker holding your license you can't collect any commission.

Posted by: Streetwise123 at September 2, 2009 8:41 PM in response to Co-broking for Myself

InvestorLlew, while what you say is true, if there is not an active broker holding BKed license then its not a valid license. Anyone can go to school and take the exams and pass, BUT unless BKed walked into a real estate firm and ask them to hold his/her license and they agreed to sponso them, it isnt valid, and therefore they are not an active real estate agent and are not permitted to collect commissions.

Posted by: Streetwise123 at September 2, 2009 8:48 PM in response to Co-broking for Myself

Hi Streetwise. Unless I am reading the OP incorrectly, he says "received my real estate broker's license awhile back, but never used it."

The OP, BKed, also writes further down, "I think there is a misunderstanding, I am not an agent, I am a licensed real estate broker."

So, what I am wondering is why are so many posters here thinking that BK is not a Broker but an AGENT who needs a Brokerage to hold his license? HE IS A BROKER.

Therefore, he can split the commission as a co-broke.

So, unless someone can tell me that a BROKER needs to have his license held by a Brokerage firm, BKed should be good to go to split the commission.

The only other thing would be if BK is not a full Broker but an Associate Broker. If that's the case, then he would need his license held by a Brokerage. BUT NOT IF HE IS A FULL LICENSED BROKER as he indicated TWICE.

Posted by: InvestorLlew at September 3, 2009 1:47 AM in response to Co-broking for Myself