Should Landlord Subsidize Tenants' Good Life?
A familiar story with the same violins playing in the background: A group of pioneering artists with under-market rents fighting the evil landlord who wants to maximize the profitability of his property. In this case, it’s a particularly colorful gang of circus performers and nonprofit publishers, many of whom will have to leave New York…
A familiar story with the same violins playing in the background: A group of pioneering artists with under-market rents fighting the evil landlord who wants to maximize the profitability of his property. In this case, it’s a particularly colorful gang of circus performers and nonprofit publishers, many of whom will have to leave New York if they lose the court battle over whether they are protected by rent stabilization laws. As big a bummer as it is for them (and arguably for the fabric of the neighborhood), we can’t see why the landlord should have to subsidize these folks any longer. No one forced them to move here twenty years ago–they did so because it was the best deal they could find at the time. It’ll be interesting to see what the judge says.
The Good Life on South 11th Street [NY Times] GMAP P*Shark
Photo by justiNYC
Um . . . what I meant by no market was just that: no market. i.e. If NO ONE wants to live in a hell hole and a landlord basically gives it to people willing to invest time and money into making it habitable (and by landlord, I mean, a guy who owns a bunch of abandoned buildings that he’s holding for the sole purpose of selling them years from now, when the market is created), then there is no market.
Dumbo’s Walentas is a good example of that approach.
Yes, artists are stupid if they think they’re gonna get to stay there forever. But it’s still sad to see them be kicked out.
And whoever expects artists to just get up and find some other “pioneering neihborhood” to live in . . . after 20 years, it’s not so easy. Especially when you’re not just some real estate climber, but have actually formed roots.
But you should know: There are PLENTY of young artists going into neighborhoods that are bombed out, abandoned, or too ethnically diverse for the average yuppie to touch (yet). Those RISD kids are the reason Providence’s industrial park is being revitalized.
Anon 11:46 AM, I agree with you totally. I also thought that the artists profiled in the times had an unbelievable deal. I wouldn’t know what to do with 2700 sq ft of living space. I could see both sides of the argument (tenants/landlord). There has to be some happy medium. I’m just a little concerned that all the artists will move away to philadelphia or seattle and nyc will evolve into a dull and boring town where we consume art rather than create it.
“Artists are special people. Without them we wouldn’t have Broadway, Museums, Opera Houses, great restaurants…culture.
They need to be protected.”
Ignoring the offensiveness of that comment to garden-variety, un-special poor people — the problem is that the system we have “protects” them at the sole expense of one group, landlords. If all society does benefit from them, all society shares the obligation.
Now as I said, this law, though unfair, is no secret, so the LL has no beef if it turns out that rent-stab protects these artists. But that cuts both ways: if it turns out they’re not protected, they have no kick coming either.
Re: To whoever was talking about them renting “below market” for twenty years. THERE WAS NO MARKET FOR 20 YEARS.
Ummmmm, a good friend of mine grew up in that neighborhood. Nice Italian extended family thing, Grandma down the block, etc. By no market, surely you must mean, “no artists, developers, or people profiled in the NYTimes or Brownstoner.” It’s not like people didn’t live there; they just didn’t get any attention. Remember all those gentrification arguments on this website?
As for 11:38 — yes, artists do need to live somewhere in NYC, but perhaps not in a frickin 2,700 square foot loft. Jeez, my parents’ 4br house in the burbs is 1/2 that size. Since the artists in that article are 2 people, no kids at home, how about a nice 800 sq ft place somewhere? A dose of reality here, people — markets change. Living requirements change — kids grow up, people move out, stuff is accumulated and discarded. Sounds like these artists don’t want to change, which is sad because change is inevitable.
Artists are special people. Without them we wouldn’t have Broadway, Museums, Opera Houses, great restaurants…culture.
They need to be protected.
We can amass all the wealth we want to, and spend the rest of our lives guarding it but where will we go for entertainment and recreation…philadelphia??
I agree with 11:05 — artists aren’t financially savvy for the most part (anyone who goes into the arts is not doing so out of a need for financially security). I wish there was more cooperation and business planning among us to ensure that our roots in the community are lasting and safe from the waves of transitory buyers/sellers.
To whoever was talking about them renting “below market” for twenty years. THERE WAS NO MARKET FOR 20 YEARS.
Cliched as it may sound, every real estate/urban planning guru will affirm the fact that it is the artists and gays that improve a neighborhood. Case in point, Hell’s Kitchen (now referred to as Clinton), Park Slope, Dumbo, Soho, Tribeca. Need I say more.
New York City is fairly young, when compared to older cities like Paris, Rome, Madrid. The city is going through a growth spurt where it is becoming increasingly ‘refined’ and wealthy. But I wonder….where will all the poor people go? And….who will be left behind to clean up after, cook for and bathe the wealthy? Forget the arts, where will the service sector live?
Will you all be able to afford private butlers and gardners and chefs and chauffers?
I saw that article in the Times. It’s a tough question. Maybe their time is up. I’m just surprised that none of them had the bright idea of banding together and buying the building. This is what many of their peers in Clinton, Tribeca and Soho had to do in order to survive the changes that gentrification brings.
I guess the landlord and artists had a symbiotic relationship for 20 years–LL had someone onsite maintaining a property, artists had an NYC address at very affordable rates. It couldn’t go on forever–LL cashed out and sold to a developer. I think it sucks for the artists to be displaced after a 20-year investment of money and hard work, but, at the end of the day, that’s the nature of renting. It doesn’t last forever. I lived in crappy way out of the way dumps for 14 years because they were cheap and I was an artists–but I also saved the difference because I wanted security, and that only comes with owning. My mortgage was double my last rent, which was painful, but I was no longer at the mercy of my housing being sold and me being kicked out–yes, it happened to me, twice.
I CHOSE to be a professional not a circus performer…Circus performers CHOSE to live in a bad neighborhood so they didn’t have to grow up…Thousands CHOOSE to risk life and limb so they can come to NYC to one-day have the CHOICE to evict clowns…
I CHOSE to buy a house from a “pioneer” to send them off to their retirement with more money than they ever could wish for…I CHOOSE to spend time participating in groups to improve my neighborhood…I CHOOSE to rent the apartment in my house below market to someone who couldn’t afford it but deserves it…My next door neighbor “pioneer” CHOOSES to screw people with constant rent increases so he can keep improving his part of the building…
Why doesn’t everyone who hates to have these choices go somewhere where they don’t have to worry about it and see how quickly their “artistic license” is taken away..