Council Debates Bill Aimed at Abusive Landlords
Not a shocker: A bill currently before the City Council that’ll give tenants increased protection against landlord harassment isn’t sitting well with landlord advocates, according to an article in today’s Sun. Critics of the bill—which would give tenants the ability to seek restraining orders against verbally and physically abusive landlords, and owners who’ve deliberately withheld…
Not a shocker: A bill currently before the City Council that’ll give tenants increased protection against landlord harassment isn’t sitting well with landlord advocates, according to an article in today’s Sun. Critics of the bill—which would give tenants the ability to seek restraining orders against verbally and physically abusive landlords, and owners who’ve deliberately withheld services—say it will lead to unnecessary litigation. “The proposed legislation is extraordinarily broad and, at the same time, extremely vague,” said the vice president of the Real Estate Board of New York, Marolyn Davenport. “This vague language will result in an avalanche of frivolous suits.” Some Councilmembers have introduced separate legislation that would also allow landlords to sue for tenant harassment, but the landlord harassment bill has broad Council support and the Bloomberg administration’s blessing, and it’s expected to pass. Who says New York’s not still a renter’s town?
Bills Favoring Tenants, Landlords Spark Debate Over Rights of Each [NY Sun]
Photo by Daily Gusto.
The whole notion that this will lead to frivolous lawsuits by tenants is insanely ridiculous. Something like 95% of all housing court cases are brought forth by landlords. According the the recent Village Voice article, over 90% of all tenants attend these cases without any legal representation, and “for landlords, the ratio is the exact reverse.” Simply put, very few tenants have access to the kinds of resources it takes to legally challenge landlords. While there are many small-time landlords, NYC is increasingly turning into a town of buildings owned by deep-pocketed companies and corporations looking to make a buck, regardless of the human cost.
And, Bill 638 (the separate, pro-landlord, legislation proposed by Baez and another Bronx politician, I think) is dead. Was struck down last week due to intense backlash. See http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2007/12/12/2007-12-12_city_council_kills_prolandlord_bill.html.
Ok, let the mud-slinging begin…
Unfortunately, the worst on both ends of the tenant/landlord debate take turns benefitting from laws designed to help combat abuses. There really are horrible, criminally negligent and dispicable landlords out there, whose tenants need the power of law to stop the abuse. On the other hand, their counterparts, the tenants from hell, use these laws to get over on honest people who are just trying to make a living.
Too bad they weren’t all involved in the same locations. It would make housing court a lot simpler. It seems like as long as we have landlords and tenants, there will be a need for Solomon-like judges to fairly adjucate, and try to keep the worst of both groups under control.
In what other state does the law give a tenant 6 months to live rent free while looking for an apartment because he/she can’t afford their current residence?!
My father who’s a landlord spent many days in court with tenants who took advantage of this law. He never threatened anyone, raise his voice to anyone, or witheld services. he lost a small fortune in unpaid rent.
He ended up selling the building because it was just too much. Now the tenants wish he was still their landlord because the new landlord does not put up with their antics.
I agree with rjlovie i don’t see how this legislation is doing anything new. Its just something politicians can say they did for their constituents come election time without really doing anything. All these things are already illegal.
What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. Laws should be tightened against tenants who are abusive to landlords too. Including: refusing to pay rent, being verbally abusive, trashing the landlord’s property, etc.
Political pandering at its worst – I am surprised Bloomie!
Harassment is a crime (and also a civil action) there is no need for this bill and witholding services (besides being nearly impossible by apartment in most multi-family buildings) is grounds for non-payment of rent and civil action in Landlord Tenant court -this is a unnecessary bill which will further contribute to LL expenses and ultimately lead to higher rents or less service for tenants –
When will they ever learn???
I think its a good thing. I was just forced to move away because my landlord was incapable of having any conversation with me without screaming and insulting me. I was terrified that this man had keys to my apartment, that if things needed to be fixed (and only after calling the city did they get fixed) that his “friends” would have access to my apartment. He seemed to think that because he owned the place he could treat me like a 5 year old. If there were laws explicitly forbidding that behavior I would have felt as if I had a bit more power in the situation.
SUE EVERYBODY!
-Sol Rosenberg
10:05, maybe I did not articulate my point well enough. My question is, wasn’t it already illegal to:
1) Fail to provide essential services as a landlord, and
2) Harass another person, including repeatedly cursing and using racial and ethnic slurs?
I by no means am against these things being illegal. I just think this kind of legislation is for show. And if I am wrong about either of the two things above being illegal, by all means…