Rent-Regulated Tenants: A Boon for Buyers?
Can rent-regulated tenants make buildings more attractive to prospective buyers? They sure can, according to the cover story in the real estate section of yesterday’s Times. The article examines the pluses and minuses of buying a property that comes with rent-controlled or rent-stabilized tenants in tow. A family that purchased a four-story brick house in…
Can rent-regulated tenants make buildings more attractive to prospective buyers? They sure can, according to the cover story in the real estate section of yesterday’s Times. The article examines the pluses and minuses of buying a property that comes with rent-controlled or rent-stabilized tenants in tow. A family that purchased a four-story brick house in Carroll Gardens for $1.5 million, for example, found that one big plus was a price tag that was about $1 million less than it would have been if there weren’t two rent-controlled apartments on the top floors. The major potential minus with such properties, of course, is the hassle owners can encounter when they try to give such tenants the heave-ho. (Check out the debate over the situation at former HOTD 227 Berkeley Place.) Any landlords care to weigh in on the pros and cons of having rent-regulated renters? Have any readers taken advantage of the rent-regulation discount?
When the Price Includes Tenants [NY Times]
Photo by bondidwhat
no, YOU wake up sucka’ broker mofo.
overhyped CG ain’t goign nowhere but down, down, down.
You have no idea what you are talking about if you think they could have found a better deal in Carroll Gardens. The area is on fire as far as sales and prices and will only continue to go up up up over the next 5 years. Safe , beautiful , and convience are the reasons. Wake up
“1:24, 2:53 et al, are you really so down on people and life? Sad.”
I’m UP on people and life. Nevertheless, I don’t believe in rent control, or in the idea of someone “inheriting” an apartment because some family member rentd the same place for 50 years. Believing in people/life and NOT believing in rent control are not exculsively intertwined.
The height of curmudgeon-ness is to put down a person who’s doing good, is happy doing so, and has even an economic basis to justify it. You’re wonderful, 1:18.
1:24, 2:53 et al, are you really so down on people and life? Sad.
1:24–Anonymous rants that complain about the poor and working poor are sophomoric at best.
1:18 here again. The annual difference between my market rate rental and my R/C one is $24,640. If I had borrowed the additional $425,000 then the interest at 5.50% (my mortgage interest) would have been an additional $23,375 per year so basically it’s a wash. Yes their annual rent doesn’t cover the operational outgoings but in all honesty it’s a pretty small subsidy and yes good karma.
Personally I love living in a mixed community – I grew up very poor and it’s important to me that my kids don’t get blinded by their affluence.
First law of Rent Regulated Apartments:
The chances of a Rent Regulated tenant leaving their abode are inversely proportional to the urgency with which the owner needs the tenant to vacate.
Corollary: the tenant’s greed grows in direct proportion to the amount offered to make him or her leave the premises.
Addendum: the involvement of tenant’s rights lawyers complicates the situation exponentially by a power of 10.
oooooh, lookie’ here:
an argument on the merits of rent control … soooo novel!
fire it up!
1:18 is certainly doing the right thing and should be commended, BUT he/she writes about a $425K discount on the purchase price, so they’re not “subsidising” the “old lady” entirely out of their own pockets.
OTOH, people like l:24 and 2:53 would. I suspect, be happy to purchase property at a similarly discounted rate (i.e. accept their functional equivilant of a subsidy) and still complain about the “unfairness” of it all. It’s greedy people like them who made rent controls necessary in the first place.