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
Judy – yeah I dont know why those developers dont earn a respectable living editing and promoting pro-drug journals sold to teenagers.
Hey, maybe instead of “crappy sheetrock” they could use hemp board!
I’m basically with Bstoner here. The artists did get a benefit–low rent for years in exchange for living somewhere no one wanted to live. The yuppies or whoever come after them have to make the opposite tradeoff — living somewhere desirable, but paying a pretty penny for it.
And saying a LL does “none of the work” is demagoguery. Being a professional LL can make you rich, but it is also often a crappy job fraught with risk. (I say this as a LL, but only of one floorthrough in my house, and I would never have the guts to do it for a living.)
But I would add that no one forces people to become landlords in a city famous for its tenant protections. (Even though I do think those protections make a small subset of the population, LLs responsible for footing the bill for affordable housing, which should be all our responsibility if it’s anyone’s.)
So if the court rules for the tenants or the landlord, I won’t cry for the loser either way.
Yes, I was just going to say, there are plenty of “artists” in my neighborhood, but their positive effects on the place are questionable. In fact, artists bear a striking resemblance to “the rest of us”, only they make little money and have a lot of spare time on their hands, not all of which is devoted to artistic pursuits.
I find it interesting that the artists here, who 20 years ago were willing to move to/live in a “bad” neighborhood (presumably in exchange for the cheap rent and large amount of space), now are no longer willing to cut the same deal. Every neighborhood undergoes change over time. Artists like to be pioneers, but it seems that they all (speaking broadly here) go as soft as us regular joes as they age. The pioneers become…. complacent.
If I was an artist needing a large amount of space for cheap $$$, I would not spend my money on legal fees. I’d cut and run, off to the Bronx. There, in the bad, nasty neighborhood with burning cars — just like the Billyburg of yore — so I could continue to create art in a large space on the cheap. To continue to pioneer, as it were.
The “whole artists as neighborhood catalyst” is so overwrought. Reduction in crime, better transportation (e.g. the metrocard transfer) active civic groups (artists living in illegal lofts don’t vote) and better schools are what truly transforms communities. I live in a nabe with a lot of these so called “pioneers” and they don’t do squat. I understand the arts do play a role in the city but I don’t believe artists should be treated differently than nurses, teachers, firefighters or other vital service providers. Then again, plebeians aren’t as media savvy as a bunch of RISD grads.
Anon @ 9:39
The Landlord didnt get all the benefits – the tenants got no increases for 20 years and below market rate rent for a large % of that time.
At best the tenants shouldnt get evicted but why should they continue to pay a below mkt rate rent???
Also important to note that current LL just bought the building.
Why is that the same people who scream about Eminent Domain (the Govt taking private property) think it is okay for the Govt to effectively take over another persons property – if that person is a LL?
BTW what justification was their for a rent strike?
9:49 — I am renting from a brownstone owner “landlord” like yourself — she bought a few buildings in Williamsburg 20years ago, and will never sell. Instead she rents for the amount of money that just lets her maintain her home. I love people like you!
9:50, if you don’t like the way this city is regulated, and the way little old ladies are protected, then go to Atlanta, or some other urban sprawled wasteland. There are plenty of unfettered free market real-estate cities where you can pay the “real” rent. MOVE THERE.
I’m so sick of these developers sucking the lifeblood out of every last interesting aspect of this city. Artists dont’ have a chance, and sadly, neither does New York.
Shame on you Brownstoner. You should know better than to side with the scumbags.