Thursday Links
Brownstones, Park Slope. Photo by guanubian. Bistricer Trying to Cut New Starrett Deal [NY Times] Spitzer Aiming to Raise De-Stabilization Threshold [NY Post] Developers Rushing To Beat the Tax Man [NY Sun] 280 Washington Avenue: Fame Slept Here [NY Magazine] One Year After the Greenpoint Warehouse Fire [Gothamist] The Greening of Lincoln Road [Across the…
Brownstones, Park Slope. Photo by guanubian.
Bistricer Trying to Cut New Starrett Deal [NY Times]
Spitzer Aiming to Raise De-Stabilization Threshold [NY Post]
Developers Rushing To Beat the Tax Man [NY Sun]
280 Washington Avenue: Fame Slept Here [NY Magazine]
One Year After the Greenpoint Warehouse Fire [Gothamist]
The Greening of Lincoln Road [Across the Park]
The History and Intention of the ESDC [AY Report]
Investing in a Co-op with Rent-Stabilized Tenant? [Forum]
Arkus- I couldn’t agree with you more.
2:31- I have to refute your statement “if you believe that Housing Court is skewed in the tenants’ favor, well, then obviously you haven’t been there in like…forever?”
I’ve worked as an attorney for both tenants and landlords. From an attorney perspective, there’s plenty of money to be made defending landlords simply because of things like rent payment plans. The tenant can pay one month, skip the next month and then you’re back in court again. Great for the lawyer, not so great for the landlord who has to pay for all this. There are many options available to tenants fighting eviction in NYC. These options drag the process on for months and months.
An educated tenant who knows all the “loopholes” can be a nightmare.
With that said, some landlords are slumlords trying to get over, but in general, I think tenants have the upper hand in housing court.
Please remember that these regulations were put in place because of the greed of landlords. Now they have to live with them.
Arkus,
I know this all too well.
I tell people, forget diamonds, a rent regulated tenant is forever.
It is also ironic that although an owner has no right to make a profit on their property, a rent-regulated tenant does. They can sublet or rent out and make a tidy sum.
The lady in my building sho rents out her second bedroom to NYU students would holler if she was told she could not charge what the market will bear.
Fred, my experiences as a landlord over the last 10 years in NYC conform 100% to your last post.
I started a non-payment case today against a rent stabilized tenant who hasn’t paid rent in a year. Stupidly, I accepted excuse after excuse about when I’d get the money.
Lawyer fees are prohibitively expense and immposible to recoup in housing court from the tenant, so I tried everything before resorting to this.
I can practically guarantee I won’t be able to evict this person. The court will force me to accept a “rent payment plan” until he gets caught up and I’ll be out a couple thousand bucks in legal fees.
What a bunch of crap.
anonymous 2:31
Good point about the profiteering, but you know what we discovered? It is perfectly legal for a rent-control tenant to rent out spare bedrooms and turn their rent-regulated apartment into an income producing property.
It is also legal for a rent control or regulated tenant to own multi-million dollar homes elsewhere, as long as they are registered to vote in NYC and they spend a specific number of days in their apartment so as to maintain their “primary residence” requirement.
They can also sublet their apartments for a number of years if they can show that they have a compelling reason to live elsewhere temporarily.
However, they are not allowed to deal drugs in their apartment, that is one of the few ways that they can be evicted.
They hold all the cards, I’m telling you. Folks who haven’t been through it can’t believe that this can be true, but it is.
ah, how refreshing to read the reports of landlords and co-op owners who believe they’re being screwed by rent regulation. Ludicrous–if you believe that Housing Court is skewed in the tenants’ favor, well, then obviously you haven’t been there in like…forever?
and fred, if your co-op board is unwilling to deal with rent-stabilized tenants who are breaking the law by profiteering…well, then obviously you need to get yourself on the board and change that.
and the two anonymous posters who say that Spitzer’s doing this for political reasons…well, duh, he’s a politician. don’t vote for him next time.
(sorry if this posts twice. b’stoner must’ve gone back to the unresponsive server)
In my co-op, some of the old rental holdouts rent out spare bedrooms for double and triple the unit’s full rent (I live in Brooklyn Heights). One of these gals owns a house in the Hamptons. Another one rebuffed her childrens’ pleas to buy the apartment and basically maintains that the building is not good nough for her to invest in. Another couple pay about $625 a month for a two-bedroom apartment. As a result, he has not worked for years and their full-time occupation is complaining about every little thing so as not to have to pay rent at all. It’s sad. I think rent control has robbed this couple of so much although they believe it has helped them. But it has done just the opposite. They have never come of age financially. They could have bought into the co-op originally for 1/100th of what their unit is worth today.
RJ,
There’s a reason so many rent stabilized tenants don’t make a lot of money. What motivates people to work hard when their rent is only $500/mo?
Rent stabilization is idiotic.
Rent vouchers for people who truly need them are one thing. Forcing private landlords to subidize folks who simple got lucky by renting years ago is moronic.
Spitzer’s move is purely political. Who the hell is he helping?
As a landlord, I’ll simply spend even more money renovating my apartments (granite counters, stainless steel appliance, etc.) to get the legal rent up to $2800/mo. (1/40th cost = per month increase.)
The apartment doesn’t actually have to rent for $2800/mo. Only the registered legal rent has to hit $2800/mo to qualify for deregulation.
I used to respect Spitzer, but this is such a politically motivated move, it’s sickening. It doesn’t help anybody and only make Spitzer look better to uneducated rent stabilized tenants who don’t understand that the rent laws.
I read Spitzer gets something like $750,000 a years from his share of his families real estate holdings in NYC. This guy is filthy rich and he doesn’t even have to do any work at all. He knows the increase won’t effect him, so what does he care?