Rich Owners 1, Rent-Stabilized Renters 0
While affordable housing advocates had reason to cheer last week with HUD’s blocking of the sale of Starrett City, they may have bigger problems in the long run from a smaller appeals court ruling that was handed down last month in the long-standing case of the East Village family that has been trying to clear…
While affordable housing advocates had reason to cheer last week with HUD’s blocking of the sale of Starrett City, they may have bigger problems in the long run from a smaller appeals court ruling that was handed down last month in the long-standing case of the East Village family that has been trying to clear an entire 15-unit building in the East Village for its personal use. Alistair and Catherine Economakis bought the building at 47 East Third Street in 2003 and told tenants that their rent-stabilized leases would not be renewed; they started eviction proceedings against the six hold-outs in December of that year. After several rounds of suits and appeals, an appellate court in Manhattan ruled in February that the clear and unambiguous provisions of both the Rent Stabilization Law and Code permit an owner to recover an unlimited number of stabilized units for personal use and occupancy without D.H.C.R. approval. The implications of this could be quite profound, it seems to us, given that there are over 200,000 rent stabilized units in Brooklyn alone. Basically, there’s a huge arbitrage play for anyone with the financial means to buy and convert a rent-stabilized building. Does anyone know if this applies by extension to rent control? If so, what about SROs? Would this remove the necessity for a Certificate of Non Harrassment in the case of personal use?
Revising the Limits on ‘Personal Use’ [NY Times]
Photo by alaspoorwho
I lived in San Francisco for a while. Rents there were stabilized unitl a tenant moved at which time the apartmnet would go to market rate. Not perfect, but makes better sense NYC.
“The lucky few?” Last I checked, almost exactly half the rentals in the city were regulated. That’s hardly a few select billionaires, guy.
It doesn’t take a huge financial investment to perform basic maintenance on a building. A lot of landlords are slumlords. Sure, there’s an economic incentive involved — but that doesn’t excuse dilapidation.
Also, read up on the concept of “unconstitutional.” Or wish you’d read a newspaper back when you bought your building, because like it or not, tenants are certainly a political force around these parts. They were in 1971, and they are now.
“The lucky few?” Last I checked, almost exactly half the rentals in the city were regulated. That’s hardly a few select billionaires, guy.
It doesn’t take a huge financial investment to perform basic maintenance on a building. A lot of landlords are slumlords. Sure, there’s an economic incentive involved — but that doesn’t excuse dilapidation.
Also, read up on the concept of “unconstitutional.” Or wish you’d read a newspaper back when you bought your building, because like it or not, tenants are certainly a political force around these parts. They were in 1971, and they are now.
Wrong, Anon 8:16,
Most landlords, including myself, did not get a “discount” because of the stabilized rents. We bought years ago when rents were lower and never imagined the arcane rent laws would last this long. Many landlords, myself including, assumed they would eventually be deemed unconstitutional and overturned.
Expenses and property taxes have drastically increased yet rent regulated rents have in no way risen in perportion to the costs of running and properly maintaining 100 year old buildings.
Why do you think so many old buildings in NYC are run down? Do you think it’s because landlords are hoarding their profits and don’t care about their properties? Of course not. It’s common sense that a rational landlord would take excellent care of a property if it were in his or her economic interest to do so.
You know very little about economics and obviously do not run a business or know anything about running one. If you had any business experience whatsoever, you wouldn’t believe that the government should manipulate the rental market by forcing landlords to accept below market rents. You’d understand that such a system only benefits the lucky few at the expense of the masses.
RE: “Rent control and rent stabilization unfairly place the burden of subsidizing housing for low income persons on individual landlords.”
There are two ways to become a landlord who owns a rent stabilized or controlled building: inherit it or buy it.
If you inherit it and think you’ll lose money on it, sell it and enjoy the windfall.
If you bought it, you got a discount because it’s stabilized. If it wasn’t, maybe you wouldn’t have been able to afford it and become a landlord in the first place. But you made your financial calculations and thought you could make a go of it. If you can’t, sell it. I bet you’ll get more for it now than you paid for it. If you want to keep it, please stop pretending you’re shocked – shocked! – to discover that your income is limited by the regulations. And stop pretending you’re subsidizing anyone – your discounted purchase, which you freely decided to make, was subsidized by the rent regulation laws in the first place.
NY could learn a thing or two from Berlin…Berlin is also at the moment going through extreme gentrification. However there is much more protection of tenants and rent control as well…This ensures that although many new residents and business enter these neighborhoods, the old ones that made it hip and desirable in the first place are usually able to stay as well..so things don’t get completely sanitized, homogenized, unaffordable and downright lame..(as happens in NY)..the people who have to pay slightly higher rents rightfully are just the newcommers(who can usually afford it anyway)..its not nearly as easy to just kick someone out on their ass, like is done on the daily in ny.
where is NYC really heading these days?
By the way, I don’t think all rent regulated tenants abuse the system, but at least 25% of them do.
If the rent laws were changed to make it easier for landlords to evict rent regulated tenants who don’t really live in their apartments, I for one would buy a beer for every Brownstoner who showed up at the bar to celebrate.
I might even throw in a round of shots!
I’m a landlord with quite a few rent stabilized and rent control apartments. The ones paying below $500/mo, I’m completely subsidizing.
Of course the system is rigged against landlords by tenants with voting power who scare the hell out of politicians.
What pisses me off is that so many of my rent regulated tenants abuse the system by illegally subletting their apartments for far above their legal rents or actaully live elsewhere, but maintain their “primary residences” in their rent regulated apartments, but really live in houses upstate.
I’ve been a landlord in Manhattan for ten years and I’ve only successfully evicted one tenant for illegally subletting an apartment and that was because the subletter refused to vacate and I could prove what was going on. Normally, that’s not the case.
The system is set up to be abused by folks who don’t even need their cheap aparments. It’s a joke and I feel like I’m being laughed at every day.
Anon 4:00
Rents of previously controlled apartments would certainly go up after decontrol. The net effect on the market as a whole would very likely be downward pressure on rents. Ask any economist.
Ultimately, the bigger question is, if society wants these people to have lower rents, why doesn’t society pay for it. If society wants you to go to college for free, society doesn’t tell NYU it has to educate you gratis. Why should this be different?