House of the Day: 130 Summit Street
At first blush, this three-family house at 130 Summit Street looked like agreat deal to us: $1,350,000 for a four-story house with lots of charm in Carroll Gardens? Sign us up. But then comes the heartbreaking fine print: The 3rd floor apartment has a dreaded rent-controlled tenant paying $325 a month. (Approximately $1,600 under market….
At first blush, this three-family house at 130 Summit Street looked like agreat deal to us: $1,350,000 for a four-story house with lots of charm in Carroll Gardens? Sign us up. But then comes the heartbreaking fine print: The 3rd floor apartment has a dreaded rent-controlled tenant paying $325 a month. (Approximately $1,600 under market. Ridiculous!) Anyway, we’ll let the quants out there decide how big a discount to market value that should mean for the house. Still might be a decent play, except for the fact that the rent controlled tenant’s location means the owner won’t be able to expand beyond a duplex.
130 Summit Street [Douglas Elliman] GMAP P*Shark
Heartbreaking? Ridiculous? Please. I’m a homeowner, but I totally support a legitimate rent-controlled tenant’s right to stay as long as they wish, and the sentiment that their presence is somehow “heartbreaking” is what’s ridiculous. I hope the little old Italian lady lives to be 120.
aside from the noise …
why not rearrange into a 3 over 1?
i’m sure the tenant can be moved to equivalent abode.
then you’d have a 2250 sq ft triplex at or about 500/sq ft in cg with free option on the garden rental.
BUUUZZZZZ!!!
sorry my last comments was for ot
at 975k, I wouldn’t mind if tenant lived there till I decide to move out. before than, let someone else with more $$$ to burn have at it.
nice house though.
not a lawyer but that is what i’ve been told by lawyers, with previous noted exception (see 206p).
In buildings with fewer than six units apartments become automatically de-controled? I have never heard that. You may be right, but it seems anthithetical to the ideology behind rent-regulation especially considering how many thousands of buildings in the boros fall in that category.
Can someone confirm this?
A rent-control apt. in this building when vacancy occurs would become free market. It is fewer than 6 apts and would not become rent-stabilized.
i just went to check out the other OT. cheeze itz. it’s way too darkside. i tried posting and it wouldnt let me.
*rob*
I knew someone who bought (as a long-term investment)a co-op apartmnet from a sponsor at a cut-rate price that was occupied by a little old lady with a rent-regulated lease. She of course would have lifetime use of the apartment. A week or two after the closing she died. The apartment instantly quadrupled in value. Its one of those things. If the lady upstairs is older and seems nice, then it may be worth the investment. If the lady lives with her 47-year old daughter, then no.
Also, just to clarify something, if a rent-regulated apartment is vacated it does not automatically revert to market. The rules are complicated. Units are not de-regulated until they reach a rent of $2,000 a month and it is difficult to get there when you start out so low.
In a situation like this, you can chose not to rent it again.