Bill Would OK Harassment Suits Against Landlords
The City Council introduced a bill yesterday that would allow renters to sue landlords for harassment. At present, tenants are only able to sue landlords over specific violations, not over patterns of harassment. The would-be law has grown out of the citywide hemorrhage of affordable housing, because more and more tenants are claiming that landlords…
The City Council introduced a bill yesterday that would allow renters to sue landlords for harassment. At present, tenants are only able to sue landlords over specific violations, not over patterns of harassment. The would-be law has grown out of the citywide hemorrhage of affordable housing, because more and more tenants are claiming that landlords are trying to drive them out of rent-regulated apartments by systematically denying basic services like heat or hot water, according to renter advocacy groups. Unsurprisingly, landlords think the bill could lead to a lot of baseless lawsuits. Think this would be a good thing?
Bill Would Give Tenants Right to Sue Landlords [AM New York]
Hot Water for Landlords [NY Post]
Photo by West Side Neighborhood Alliance
Believe it or not, there are advanced degree holding, tax paying, almost middle-class folks living in RS apartments. My husband and I are teachers – obviously we don’t make a lot of money, but we would like to live within 45 minutes of the schools where we teach.
Due to the shoddy workmanship of plumbers hired by our landlord, our entire building was without gas for two months. Workers would come and go without notice or updates from our landlord and I felt very unsafe. When I respectfully requested 24 hours notice before workers showed up at our apartment, the landlord threatened to evict me.
If we were not in a RS apartment, I have no doubt that our landlord would refuse to renew our lease and we would have to reconsider our commitment to trying to improve the city’s public schools.
All we asked for was to be treated with respect. We pay our rent on time. We are quiet and request little from the landlord or super. We simply need more time to save the tens of thousands of dollars for a down payment on our own home in this city. We don’t have parents to give us a down payment. We saw all the crazy mortgage schemes in the last few years and decided not to partake in something we new we could not afford in the long run.
The vitriol shown on this forum toward renters is incredibly disheartening. We don’t want something for nothing. We simply want the services we pay for.
In virtually every building it is IMPOSSIBLE to shut off the heat and/or hot water to the RS/RC (or below market tenants) so the idea that in a gentrifying building the LL is trying to drive out the poorer tenants in favor of attracting wealthier tenants by denying such basic services is just not feasible. Unless of course the LL is willing to deny heat and hot water to his market rate tenants as well – which doesn’t strike me as a very intelligent policy.
Tenants who dont pay rent on time (or at all) will and do use every method to avoid being evicted. If you add to the arsenal of these professional deadbeats without adequate protections, this new provision will be abused.
Lest you think that this only affects the LL and the ‘bad tenants’ – realize that years ago, credit and background checks, income verifications and co-signers were rare. However given the ASTRONOMICAL cost and time to evict people who refuse to abide by their lease, it is now mandatory for any decent building. So the next time you pay $50-$150 to simply APPLY for a rental apartment remember why!
Well, here we go again with the unsupported, ridiculous statements about rent protections in New York City.
9:58: you claim rc/rs is a “known problem” and that it is an “accepted principle” that rent protection raises the cost of living in the city. But you cite nothing besides your own opinion.
I sincerely doubt that anytime a rent protected tenant has “a bad hair day” they’ll try to claim harassment, 9:10, but maybe you say that because it’s what you’d do.
BTW, the argument that rc/rs tenants feel “entitled” to low rent has no basis in fact. What rent protected tenants do feel entitled to are the protections of law. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.
Finally–and this should be important to many of the forum posters looking for cheap prices on their renovations: Abolish rent protections in NY and I guarantee you’ll be paying more and waiting longer to have that soapstone countertop installed. Just sayin’.
I agree with everyone above. The landlord owns the building after all. He can turn off the water for 12 hours every day if he wants. Property rights are paramount, after all. If the tenants don’t like it, they should buy their own apartment building.
/snark
Sheesh. Might be nice if somebody would actually look up what this bill says. That could make a whole lot of difference, depending on how it defines harassment. I personally don’t think the law is strong enough in providing only a $5000 civil fine; that’s peanuts to a landlord trying to drive out tenants.
Every time the heat breaks the tenants are going to scream harassment — makes being a mom&pop landlord virtually impossible.
Rent control and rent stablization are known problems within the NYC economy. It is a well accepted prinicple by almost every economist that rent control and rent stablization actually increase th ecost of living in New York. Any argument that it is necessary to allow those less fortunate to live inthis great city and maintain a diverse community is naive. In actuality, and this is widely accepted, the individuals in the rent control or rent stablization are the most fortunate individuals living in the city. This does not mean that rc/rs tenants are all living high on the hog, merely that they are lving at th eexpense of others, INCLUDING MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO DON’T HAVE HIGH INCOMES. These are truly less fortunate, because they cannot gain access to a rc/rs tenancy, which is not based on salary, but instead when the house was erected, and what type of units were put in place. As a result of rc/rs, the less fortunate individuals have to pay much higher rents, which actually makes it worse for lower income individuals to live in this city and greatly reduces diversity. Rent control laws are on the way out. The NY legislature has already implented laws that will eventually remove all rent control tenants. To pass a law to protect a ancient and admitted defecient law is ludicrous and irresponsible.
9:35
Rent control doesn’t have anything to do with education. It is just as impossible for teachers to get a rent regulated apartment as it is for a regular joe. As has been proven time and time again, rent control and stabilization harms the vast majority of people who aren’t lucky enough to find such an apartment. It benefits the few at the expense of the many.
Rent stabilization is on th way out for the simple reason most of the buildings are falling apart. No one will build new rental housing without huge subsidies from the government, and most new multi-family housing is decidedly condo. In 100 years, rent control won’t matter because all the housing in this city will be owner occupied, and the poor will have to move elsewhere simply because there is no rental housing available to them.
Capitalism. Survival of the fittest. It works. Why is it that people feel that they are entitled to a low rent?
It’s an excellent idea that’s long overdue. It’s very nice that most Brownstoner readers can afford things like their own building, but many of us can’t, and that doesn’t make us deficient human beings. Rent stabilization/control is responsible for keeping the tiny bit of NYC that’s still interesting that way. Once you hedge-fundy/trustafarians take over (and I’ve no doubt that rent stabilization is on its way out), you’ll find yourself in a hi-rise version of the suburbs you grew up in and maybe you’ll miss us “poors.” After all, who’s going to educate your brats or pour your coffee once we’re gone?