union stEveryone knows we’re a sucker for a FSBO listing, so no surprise that we’re taking a look at this one at 306 Union Street in Carroll Gardens. The four-story brick house has 3,900 square feet above grade and another 800-square-foot English basement. It’s currently configured as a four-family and looks to us to be in decent shape–though some of the kitchens and bathrooms leave us feeling a little limp, though if you’re going to convert to a one- or two-family, most of those will get ripped out anyway. (See for yourself at the open house on Sunday from 2-4.) The current owners did a lot of work on the place when they bought several years ago–including restoring the parquet floors (our favorite from the photos) and tin ceilings. The owners’ favorite detail? The original crown moldings. The location–a block from the trains and restaurants–is appealing as well. Given that this place will most likely need some dough plowed into it (whether to improve some of the finishes and fixtures or to change the configuration), the $2.2 million ask may be a bit of a stretch, but it is a 22-footer in an increasingly desirable area, so who knows. How do people think this stacks up against Monday’s HOTD on Dean Street?
Carroll Gardens FSBO [306 Union Street] GMAP P*Shark


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. Actually, recent changes in rent stabilization laws are more in favor of the landlord than they used to be. If a household makes over a certain amount, I think it’s $175,000, the apt. is no longer rent stabilized for them. And as posted previously, once a rent crosses $2,000, it’s no longer stabilized.

    But if you do have a rent-stabilized apt., it can stay in a family for generations. For example, a mother can put her kids on the lease, and they’re entitled to it if she departs or dies.

    I believe very strongly in affordable/mixed income housing, but I sometimes wonder if rent controls are a big mistake–the free market may actually be better (except for the elderly and very poor).

    Landlords warehouse apartments so that they can sell a building vacant, thereby taking badly-needed housing off the market for months or years. Or they super-renovate some units to get the max rents under the new law. Or they neglect units because they’re such money-losers with rent stabilization.

    If the market prevailed rather than rent stabilization, I think there would be plenty of landlords who would be happy to own and maintain moderately-priced apts that regular people could afford.

  2. Nutcase, I understand the realities of the marketplace…sucks when it happens to you, though! It’s ok, though, like Sandstone, it gave my husband and I the “push” we needed to buy our own place. Other people who may not have had our savings or resources may not have been so lucky.

    The building we lived in was a 4-family like the one shown – definitely NOT rent-stablized.

  3. We were “kicked to the curb” as you put it two years in a row in Park Slope with 1 and then 2 kids. In hindsight, it was the best thing that ever happened to us because we felt we had no choice to buy. That was in 1997. Nevertheless, it was traumatic for us and the building owners were pretty cruel about it because we insisted on staying until our lease ran out. It was a one year lease and we had only been there 3 months when they asked us to leave. I’m not saying the laws should change but I can’t say I would want to be the buyer that causes that kind of disruption to a family with a 4 year-old and a newborn. After all this time, I’m still mad. The house we bought had tenants but we met them before we bought and they were wonderful.

  4. thanks for the update Wally and tinarina. That’s an eye-opener. I thought that landlords always had the option to ask the rent-stabilized tenant to move when the lease expired. But it seems like that can only happen if/when the owner decides to fully-occupy the building.

    Wow!

    I sort of straddle the fence between affordable housing and a de-regulated rental market. But it seems as if the only people that can afford to be landlords these days are the upper-middle class and those who bought early (i.e., pre-2001).

    Now I understand why so many posters considered rent-stabilized and rent-controlled housing to be the landlord ‘subsidizing’ housing for the poor.

    Things are beginning to get a little clearer. The laws have to be modified somewhat because it seems to be really, really, really tough on the landlord these days and it’s out of context with the current market (i.e., rising prices).

  5. Nutcase, you have pointed out the issue with rent stabalized and rent controlled leases-the landlord must renew the leases and the annual rental increases are set by law.

    Also, the $2,000 statement that you make is not quite right. I will try to find the applicable law, but I believe that the LL can make improvements and then divide the cost of the improvements by 48 (?) and tack that number onto the allowable monthly rent. Then, if an apt is vacated and the allowable rent is $2,000 or more, the LL can get the apt to no longer be rent/control regulated. If an apt is occupied and the allowable rent rises to $2,000 or more and the tenant’s income is at least $175,000 for 2 years, then the LL can also get the apt so released.

    The following link should have the actual rules which I have just listed off the top of my head and I’m sure are not quite right.

    http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/faq/rentstab.html

1 2 3 4 5