Rental of the Day: 130 Summit Street, #3
When 130 Summit was a HOTD back in 2009, the major drawback was the rent-controlled tenant in place, who was only paying $325 a month. Well, that tenant’s out and the third-floor Carroll Gardens apartment is now going for a far more expensive $2,100/month. The one-and-a-half bedroom apartment has charm, beautiful plank wood floors, and…
When 130 Summit was a HOTD back in 2009, the major drawback was the rent-controlled tenant in place, who was only paying $325 a month. Well, that tenant’s out and the third-floor Carroll Gardens apartment is now going for a far more expensive $2,100/month. The one-and-a-half bedroom apartment has charm, beautiful plank wood floors, and a nice location. Just give us a few more pictures! What do you make of the asking rent?
130 Summit Street, #3 [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
that apartment is painfully cute.
Thought it was an in line price if it’s really 700 feet. But that’s the wrong end of that block…I don’t know.
Pete, issue is that for deductions you are capped at income and that really hurts when that is income from a rent stabilized apartment, although I guess you could make a reasonable argument that you’ve already captured that value in a lower sale price….
owner also gets to depreciate 1/2 of value of building over howmany years….so that greatly improves cash flow.
Yeah, rent stabilized tenant was on the floor above the owners’ duplex. I remember because when I went to the open house my thought was I could convert it to a triplex but no dice.
Price seems a little high, but not terrible. Bigger issue is that the owner needs to cover the mortgage with only income from this and the rent stabilized place and gets killed because 50% of the mortgage interest tax deduction can only be applied against the rental income. Was thinking about making an offer on this place until I ran those numbers (but wouldn’t have won anyway since it went over ask)
“the major drawback was the rent-controlled tenant in place, who was only paying $325 a month.”
Got to love the anti-RC drivel. For the thousandth time, the tenant is (was) playing by the rules and it’s not his or her fault that property owners want to change the ground rules in the middle of the game. The below market rent is reflected in the price paid for the building and my bet is that the tenant was in place before the owner of the building bought the property. If not, then the owner signed up the tenant in the first place.
never in my life would i have given up a 325 dollar apartment. the person obviously either croaked who got a HUGE buyout.
Holla !!!
Is that legal to raise the asking rent by so much?
I thought if the tenant left a rent controlled and you were doing renovations you were allowed to raise rent up to 30%.
I visited the house when it was for sale. The $325 a month tenant did not live on the third floor (pictured) which is quite nice by the way. The tenant’s apartment was on another floor and needed repair.