House of the Day: 227 Berkeley Place
We were wondering why the price tag on this Berkeley Place house was only $2,799,000. Then we got to the part in the description about the single rent controlled stabilized tenant in a studio on the top floor. Losing the half-floor of space is less of a bummer than the fact that you have to…
We were wondering why the price tag on this Berkeley Place house was only $2,799,000. Then we got to the part in the description about the single rent controlled stabilized tenant in a studio on the top floor. Losing the half-floor of space is less of a bummer than the fact that you have to keep the entire stairwell public. Then again, that’s why this place (which has some pretty kick-ass plaster and woodwork) isn’t priced in the mid-threes. It’s a tricky situation though: Most folks with $2.8 million to spend don’t want to be bothered with this kind of thing. Clearly the tenant doesn’t want to bought out or the current owners would have done so before putting the house on the market.
277 Berkeley Place [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
Photo by Kate Leonova for Property Shark
Once again the sheer nastiness of putative landlords is overwhelming. I guess that anonymity allows this kind of venom. Calling renters “stinky” saying “get rid of them,” (Tenant-Motel, anyone?) etc makes me wonder if any of these unhappy people were 1) ever once renters 2) have any compassion for those less well-off than themselves 3) just plain entitled and arrogant?
Since I am a landlord myself, I’d like to say that I’m grateful for my tenants rent which lets me afford my brownstone. I have no prolems “sharing my (precious) space”.
Eryximachus, you always manage to make utter nonsense sound reasonable, because you phrase it well. However, you, and those who agree with you, have taken the existence of a few deadbeats and abusers of the system and created from them, an entire world view which does not depend on fact. I would be the first to concede that the rent regulations in this city are antiquated and need to be redone. However, to say that rent regulated tenants have made cheap housing impossible for all of the apartment sharing 20 somethings, shows that you are mainly whining because you can’t get a swanky apartment by yourself, even with your 6 figure salary, which you haved bragged about in the past. I hardly think you are overly concerned with the housing needs of many New Yorkers.
I’m waiting for the proof and statistics that show that rent stablilized people litter more than others, especially in front of their own buildings, especially when I see men in 3 piece suits dropping candy wrappers in the street as often as anyone else.
I concede that many landlords cannot improve their buildings because they can’t afford it, although that really is not a good enough excuse to let Berkeley Place Girl’s landlord off the hook. There is can’t fix it, and won’t fix it, and fixing a door is not the same as installing new windows in the building. Just as there are bad tenants, there are scores of bad landlords. Housing court leans towards the tenants for a reason.
Finally, the absurd notion that rent stabilization ruins the lives of young renters just makes me cry. You poor things! I frankly have more compassion for an 80 year old pensioner being frozen out of his apartment by a landlord who wants the space.
As someone who is concerned with preservation, I fail to see your correlation between building new buildings and historic preservation. Aren’t you the one who is always railing against any kind of preservation, because it hinders the ability of developers to build, build, build? You can’t change your stripes overnight in an attempt to win an argument by trying to drum up sympathy for the plight of displaced hipsters who think they should be enjoying the apartments of the subsidised, especially in the name of preservation. MOST of the people in subsidized housing are there because they need help. The system needs fixing, but it’s there for a reason.
Subsidized housing is housing that is subsidized by some entity. Rent stabilized tenants are subsidized firstly by the landlord, and secondly by the millions of New Yorkers who aren’t lucky enough to have a rent stabilized apartment.
All the 20 somethings living in shared apartments directly subsidize deadbeat rent stabilized tenants subsisting on the public dime. They pay higher prices because these tenants don’t pay their fair share.
A huge number of rent regulated tenants barely pay their fair share of energy usage and real estate taxes. Many barely pay enough to pay a sanitation citation when they leave their garbage on the street on days other than the designated collection day.
And Anon 6:47 is correct – the dilapidation of many NYC apartment buildings is directly the result of rent stabilization. Landlords simply do not have the money to make meaningful repairs or improvements, and spend only enough to maintain the property.
At this point in time, with record increases in energy prices, we may again reach a point like in the 1970s where landlords simply walk away from buildings.
As for you Preservationista, the hatred of rent regulated tenants is twofold: The lives of young people in NYC are made unnecessarily difficult by the program. Further, for anyone who loves beautiful architecture, rent stabilization has made the construction of new housing difficult, and has directly created our current market of nearly no vacancy in neighborhoods close to Manhattan. If it were not for rent regulations, new apartment buildings would be easier to construct, and existing ones could be marketed at higher rents. Market demand could eventually force landlords to improve their buildings, if they actually had to compete for tenants.
Right now, people will take whatever they can get, if they are lucky enough to even find a vacant apartment.
Rent ceiling regulations create a divisive world in this city, and as the city becomes more prosperous, the rebellion of the people against this oppressive system will only increase.
Renter subsidy of homeowners is mortgage interest deduction and r.e. tax deduction. So quit whining about renters.
What a bunch of nonsense. If the city regulates rents in certain buildings, the buildings will end up being managed by landlords who cannot afford to fix the buildings. To the people who blame the landlord, you have a limited understanding of economics. And if you think rent regulation primarily benefits the elderly and infirm, you have a limited understanding of new york city real estate.
“Other brokers from competing firms do not want to deal with a broker who has a bad reputation in dealing with people.”
Huh? Yeah, if the buyers wants the house and they want to make as ell theyw ill. I don’t want a broker who is is scared of another borker. If I want the house, I, and my broker, better deal with the “nasty” listing broker. Its NYC real estate, deal with it.
I can only hope that the nastiest of the comments directed towards Berkeley Girl, and rent stabilized/control tenants in general, has been by one of our rabble rousing trolls, or just some awful, unhappy person who just needs to spew venom.
I fail to see how any tenant, rent controlled/stabilized or otherwise, is responsible for the facade of the building they live in – that one is solely on the landlord. The fact that the tenants have complained to authorities numerous times, is in no way a reflection on them, if he chooses to ignore the city and his own tenants. It is nonsense that the door remains in the condition it is in because the landlord is not getting market rate rents.
Berkeley Girl is correct in that she and many other old time renters helped bring Park Slope back, as did the homeowners who bought brownstones and renovated them. This is true in every old neighborhood in the city. This is New York City, it always has, and always will, depend on renters. 98% of the people on this blog have been renters at some point in their lives. Since when did they become the scum of the earth? How many brownstone owners are also landlords, because they need the money to pay the bills? Renters have saved our butts, and enabled most of us to be able to afford these houses. Where does this bourgois snobbiness and contempt for renters come from? And where is our human compassion for the elderly and infirm? Should they be tossed into the street because some hedge funder wants an exercise room? What kind of people are we?
Berkeley Girl, if you are still here, not all of us are the same as the a&%holes who have seen fit to spew on this thread. What a disappointment!
not that i believe i’ll change anyone’s mind, but neither rent control nor rent stabilization are subsidized housing. 421a tax abatements to build luxury condos are subsidized housing. rent control and rent stabilization are state laws that have helped many people maintain a stable existence in what has become one of the most expensive cities in the world.
i get really tired of reading nasty, bitter, sarcastic posts about how rent rgulations are evil. the next time this subject comes up on Brownstoner, i’d like to read something constructive–and not just “abolish rent regulation so that everyone will pay $1500/m for a studio (like i do)”–about other ways to ensure there’s some affordable housing left in NYC.
maybe if bp girl’s apt was not regulated, the landlord could afford to fix up the building? no, i guess that’s the free market at work, and no free ride for girls like berkely girl. i guess the world owes them a handout and we must all live with the squalid condition of the building. i wish i could afford a laptop like berkely girl, but alas i don’t live in a subsidized apartment