Subletting and then assigning a Rent-Stabilized Lease?
Hi — I am about to start subletting a rent-stabilized one bedroom apartment in Park Slope. When the sublet is over, in two months, I would like to take the lease over. My question: Is there any way to get around the 20% vacancy lease increase? Is the situation different because I will have been…
Hi — I am about to start subletting a rent-stabilized one bedroom apartment in Park Slope. When the sublet is over, in two months, I would like to take the lease over. My question: Is there any way to get around the 20% vacancy lease increase? Is the situation different because I will have been living there already? I know I can try to have the lease assigned to me, but it seems like the landlord can reject that request? Do I have any rights as a subletter? Thanks for the help!
Hi — I’m the original poster, and I just wanted to clarify (to 2:26 in particular) that of course I have had a conversation with the person I’m subletting from and of course I am not pulling “an old school NY push to put one over on the original tenant.” I’m just trying to protect myself, and find out if I have any rights, so I don’t start living there and then get priced out when the rent goes up too high.
Thanks to everyone who actually answered my question, now I know what to expect. I appreciate all the help that was genuinely given.
7:05 & 8:23, rent increases in an overall area would work counter to the increased inventory and reduced pressure of removing RS/RC units.
So if RC/RS units comprised 2% of lost value in an area, and the overall increase of rent was 6%, then youd have a net gain of 4% for all.
Thats the point, when some people have artificially low rent, others have to make up the difference, so as rents increase the pressure mounts on those without artificially reduced rent. if RS/RC were ubiquotous, then we’d have a different story.
Of course you can push the boston studies cherry picking as much as you want and stick your head in the sand, when boston is NOTORIOUSLY under-stocked in comparison with bostons HUGE population increase over the same time.
removing RS/RC wouldnt cause rents to fall, it would cause rents to escalate slower for the majority, and would also cause them to become consistent.
My low rent is a result of original value (5 years ago) vs inflated current value (housing bubble & RC/RS eating at inventories). And the landlord is NOT happy to have the situation now that the building isnt gaining x% per anum.
Not my fauult if you suck at math.
I think you used to be able to get around the vacancy raise by having the person you are subletting from (the one who holds the rent stabilized lease) request that the landlord put you on the lease WITH them, as co-tenant. (Of course, this won’t work if (1) the landlord knows the original tenant moved out and sublet to you, (2) the landlord doesn’t want to add an additional tenant – as they don’t have to, and many are wise and won’t do this any longer, but it never hurts to ask, or (3)the original tenant is not a friend and doesn’t want to be on a lease with you (responsible for the rent if you don’t pay) after they have moved on.) If it works, you can remove their name on a later year’s lease. Good luck.
yea, how about some communication?
I thought the original renter was out of the picture personally, in which case I’d talk to the LL at the beginning of the sublease and see what you can work out. If you want to stay forever, you can accept a moderate upfront increase to get your name on the lease.
Everything is negotiable…unless the rent is like $56. Then forget everything I said.
The original poster does not state if the tenant that she is subletting the apartment from actually wishes to give up their lease to said apartment. Just that she would like to take the lease over. I may be wrong, but it sounds like an old school NY push to put one over on the original tenant. You’ve just started subletting for two months and you’re trying to take over the lease? Why didn’t you have this discussion with the person who has let you into their home? Hmmmmmmmmmmm…
Right, like how rents fell like a stone in Boston when they abandoned rent control back in 1997. Oh wait, they didn’t. Nobody’s rents went down. In the CURP study of Boston’s housing stock, rents rose an average of 8-9% a year in most Boston municipalities from 1997 to 2004, and more than doubled in some neighborhoods. Boston’s taking a serious look at enacting rent stabilization.
Or like how ACPO promised a tidal wave of new, moderate income construction across the boros if only the state legislature would get rid of rent control in favor of rent stabilization back in 1973. Ten years later, not only wasn’t a single moderate-income unit built, moderate income housing stock in general shrank as many of those buildings were co-opped.
Sorry, but I can’t shed any tears for a speculator who buys a building knowing what the rents are and what the law is and then cries about being made a victim.
Well, 6:52, where to start? If you’d do a little research, you might find out that RS/RC do NOT push up prices for everyone else. (I’m thinking of a case study from Boston.) But, be that as it may, very few landlords of RS/RC buildings aren’t turning a profit. Believe it or not, there’s actually a provision for owners of RS/RC buildings who don’t net a 5% return to apply for hardship rent increases. How many landlords have you heard of taking advantage of this? Any? You say that you’re not RS or RC, but pay below market rent…and yet your landlord is happy to have you stay? That alone should tell you something about your premise.
Sorry for the rant, OP. But you probably won’t get the lease renewed without some kind of increase. (And that would apply even if you were a family member of the leaseholder, cause ‘succession rights’ don’t kick in for two years.) Call the landlord and try to work a deal. That’s my advice.
5:16 here.
yes, supply and demand do dictate such terms, if the RS & RC apts were free market theyd have a negative influence on the value of other apt’s adjacent in their given markets.
If your asking on a specific case by case scenario its impossible to quantify directly, but on a neighberhood by neighberhood level, yes it is completely and utterly true.
mathmatics dictate such, additionally, in a building purchased with x% RS/RC units vs other units vs mortgage, utility, tax and maintence costs, a recovery portion within a threshold of tolerance (say up to 10% loss per anum) must be recovered, the amount NOT recovered from the RS/RC units will be taken by increasing the rents in the other units.
This math applies as simply commoon sense, the rent bassis vs property value (mortgage cost) right now is in favor of renters (in gernal)… which puts even more pressure on upward rental prices… further complicated (constrained) by RC/RS units.
this is all economic math, im not even exploring the issues that surround who actually GETS RS/RC units, nor the reasons they were created in the first place.
Warehousing of residential units by larger holding companies in general causes additional problems further escalating the issue.
In the very long run of things, people of the same/similar income levels should be paying the same/similar rents for the same/similar units of value. This will never be a perfect balence, but when said balence is well out of wack due to whatever causes (RC/RS laws, warehousing, natural disaster, etc..) it causes serious issues that go deeper than just the base unfairness of it all.
Disclaimer : i pay (NOW after 10 years of residency) significantly under CURRENT market value, i am not RS/RC… but my payments now cause pressure on my unit and others well out of balence with actual RE value… each new owner taking on greater mortgage etc…
I like every one else will take advantage of a good deal for as long as i can have it, and the RS/RC laws allow exactly that, people taking advantage of an unfair system. they should be eradicated in favor of a system that gives RS/RC only to those truly needy with a valid social benefit to all.
crap out of luck. actually its against the law.