Heights Rent-Controller Out on a Technicality
“Rob a bank, and if the federal government doesn’t catch you in five years, you’re off the hook,” said Josh Barbanel in a Times story this weekend, but for Robert Nocco, no statute of limitations could save him: the new owner was able to rummage back to 1976 to challenge Nocco’s right to a rent-controlled…
“Rob a bank, and if the federal government doesn’t catch you in five years, you’re off the hook,” said Josh Barbanel in a Times story this weekend, but for Robert Nocco, no statute of limitations could save him: the new owner was able to rummage back to 1976 to challenge Nocco’s right to a rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn Heights, at 222 Henry Street. Mr. Nocco’s parents moved into the apartment about fifty years ago, the article explains, and until June, Mr. Nocco, who was paying $212 in rent every month, had thwarted several legal attempts to remove him from the apartment. The current owner (who paid $386,566 for the five-story building in 2005, according to Property Shark) took his case to state housing regulators and noted that in 1976, Mr. Nocco rented another apartment in Brooklyn, while his parents moved to Florida. Since regulations would require Mr. Nocco to have lived with his parents for two years prior to taking over a rent-controlled apartment, this was enough for a housing officer to rule in the landlord’s favor. The two parties reached a settlement (in the very low six figures), and Mr. Nocco moved out in June.
Rent-Control Rights Stripped Away [NY Times]
By the way, I never suggested it was a “bad business move” or that the owners were “stupid.”
I only suggested that it is very interesting to me that folks happen to have the ability to throw a big wad of cash at someone… a VERY large wad.
“if he settled for 100K, the owner actually paid $486K for this house.”
ditto, you can also add to that the opportunity costs associated with not collecting market rate rents. Regardless, if we are to believe that $386K figure, I would still say the owners got a curiously good deal. They’re in the business of selling brownstones, so maybe they saw or knew something that nobody else did at the time.
Ditto, if you’re doing that kind of math, you might as well add in the legal bills too but guy still pay a super bargain price if that figure is correct
486K for a house in Brooklyn Hts was still a great deal. I think the owner benefited morefrom rent control than the tenant.
The owners are far from stupid. A floor through apartment in this area can sell for $1MM and can rent for a hell of a lot more than $212. Seems like not a bad business move to pay $100K or $200K to free up the space. And it appears to me the renter (and his family) made out incredibly well too. He had a very sweet deal for decades and then gets a nice windfall on top of that. Win-win situation.
I have to agree with perhaps that there is something bizarre about that $386K figure.
if he settled for 100K, the owner actually paid $486K for this house.
i think there’s something weird with that 386K figure for the house. not only is it almost unbelievable, but the article states that the owner paid 2mil. not sure whether this was an extraordinary deal for the buyer, so much as a record keeping anomaly.
i have no problem with rent control per se. it’s basically the same thing as living in the projects, except you dont really live in the projects and the income level isnt absurd. i think they seriously need to raise the income level for people to get an apartment in the projects as well as allow people who dont have kids. i dont think having a kid should be someones lotto ticket to benefits and crap, but it is.
*rob*
Is there anything about rent control that isn’t absurd, awful, or both?
I realize the original intent was somewhat noble and even reasonable, but the way it has been implemented is terrible.
Those apartments are basically winning lottery tickets or prison cells for the people who have them, depending on whether or not the place and neighborhood suits them.