130-Summit-Street-1009.jpg
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



What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. the tenant has to have been there b4 year of the flood.
    And you just can’t add someone to lease (and a lease probably does not even exist). They need to be living there before the tenant dies.

  2. where are the posters who believe that getting rid of renters is no problem, or better yet, that there is no such thing as rent control in brownstone apartments, or that if the owner wants to use it for his own purposes that a letter from a lawyer will suffice to get the tenant packing? Obviously this tenant is savvy and does not want to move, ever. If they could have been bought out, the sellers would have done it. If you are interested in buying this house, you should meet the tenant and decide if you can accept them into your family, because as I have written before, it is really their house, you are the interloper.

  3. Unfortunately, rent control does not end with death. I believe an immediate family member can be added to the lease and upon the current tenants expiration, the lease will be transferred to that tenant.

  4. “it’s probably some old Italian lady”
    or it could be a really obnoxious middle aged capo who “inherited” the apartment and whose hobbies are gun collecting and smoking in bed.

1 3 4 5