Since When Are Banks Anti-Gentrification?
We certainly can understand the moral reasons behind pressuring landlords to repair their buildings (as well as the p.r. benefits), but we were a little surprised to see the banks take such an explicit stance on a related social issue: A coalition of housing advocacy groups and two large banks that hold mortgages on hundreds…
We certainly can understand the moral reasons behind pressuring landlords to repair their buildings (as well as the p.r. benefits), but we were a little surprised to see the banks take such an explicit stance on a related social issue:
A coalition of housing advocacy groups and two large banks that hold mortgages on hundreds of apartment buildings in New York City announced an unusual agreement yesterday under which they will use the banks’ leverage as lenders to pressure landlords into repairing dilapidated buildings.
The agreement between the coalition, Housing Here and Now, and the banks, Citigroup and New York Community Bank, represents a new weapon against landlords reluctant to make repairs. Housing advocates hope to use this tool not simply to fix leaks and crumbling plaster, but also to shore up low-income neighborhoods and make them less vulnerable to gentrification.
Banks Press Landlords on Repairs [NY Times]
when rent control is gone. everything would even out. right now some citizens are paying more than others. ie shouldering the other tenants rent. if everyone pay market rates the ones who are paying highest would go lower and the lowest would go higher :p.
Wow Uncle- don’t you sound like a humanitarian. And just what effect do you think that will have? This is a dicussion we’ve had many times on this forum. Rent regulation was set in place for a reason. Whether or not aspects have to change is certainly not in question. But a scam? No. If you’re a landlord and you aren’t making money I suggest you sell.
Thanks for that information David- the building was rent stabilized, 16 units, and had a pretty fair turnover so her apartments were pretty much at market rate. To her credit she upgraded the empty ones very nicely, and really cared about the property. My present landlady is also great so I’ve been really lucky.
Rent regulation is one of the biggest scams this side of the Mississippi.
Forcing one private citizen (landlord) to subsidize another (tenant) is flat out wrong.
One of these days these byzantine rent laws will be overturned (probably by the Supreme Court) and an “earthquake” of evictions will take place in NYC.
Lofty true- but replacing a leaky roof or replacing a non-functioning intercom, or a faulty boiler are all major capital improvements.
fixing a roof or repairing a non-working intercom is not a major capital improvement. It’s deferred maintenance.
I think you are taking Brownstoner’s “surprise” and stretching it beyond what he said. I’ll let him defend that. However, I can say that in this instance, it is a matter of regulatory compliance and protection of assets on the banks’ parts, not simple benevolence. I do agree that those interests do align with the interests of the residents of run down buildings, which is a good thing. I don’t think that Brownstoner is implying that financial institutions should not help if they can, but I’ll let him clarify his thoughts on that.
Anon 11:345 here– To respond to anon 12:03, I would just say that I know that banks are motivated by profit.
In this case, the banks interest in protecting assets, their interest in PR, and their ongoing obligations to comply with the Community Reinvestment Act (which is related to pr also, because they want to be SEEN as complying) all add up to make this in their interest.
What I find sad is that in a happy situation as this, where housing advocates and banks have aligned interests and can get something (small) done to prevent eviction, the reaction of Brownstoner (and many others on this board) is ‘why should the banks care?’
It is almost like the belief that government should stop trying to fix social problems has morphed into a belief that ALL institutions should do so– even when it is in their interests to become engaged. It is like people are allergic to making positive, economically viable steps to improve the situation.
And Lofty while many violations may simply require painting or plastering, there are many violations that would require MCI-type improvements, for example leaks as a result of a bad roof, or brick work; non working intercom system; non-functioning elevator, etc, etc
Lofty – For buildingwide MCI like new windows you are correct that tenant has no say (is allowed to comment and dispute work etc….), but you must replace windows buildingwide However for single apartment improvements LL need the approval of existing tenant in order to collect- from DHCR:
“An owner who pays for a substantial increase of dwelling space or an increase in services, or new furniture or furnishings, or the installation of new equipment or improvements provided in or to an occupied rent stabilized or rent controlled apartment, and has obtained the written consent of the tenant to the rent adjustment, may adjust the rent by 1/40th of the cost of the new item(s) including installation costs, but not finance charges.”