Tenants Fight Eviction on Bergen Street
A Prospect Heights block party yesterday had homemade food, loud music and a louder message: Good neighbors do not evict neighbors. The Fifth Avenue Committee-organized event was aimed at drawing attention to the plight of four rent-stabilized tenants facing eviction from 533 Bergen Street, and it highlighted bubbling tensions over affordable housing, gentrification and Atlantic…
A Prospect Heights block party yesterday had homemade food, loud music and a louder message: Good neighbors do not evict neighbors. The Fifth Avenue Committee-organized event was aimed at drawing attention to the plight of four rent-stabilized tenants facing eviction from 533 Bergen Street, and it highlighted bubbling tensions over affordable housing, gentrification and Atlantic Yards. Councilmember Letitia James, State Senator Velmanette Montgomery and various activists spoke in support of the longtime tenants, who are fighting lawsuits from 533 Bergen’s new owners. The two couples that bought the building last year—Dan Bailey and Felicity Loughrey, along with Deanne Cheuk and Andre Wiesmayr—claim they want to evict the tenants because Bailey and Loughrey intend to construct a triplex for themselves out of the units. Under current laws, landlords of rent-stabilized buildings are allowed to evict tenants if they plan to live in the units themselves.
Most speakers called for reforming rent-regulation laws and maintaining affordability for low-income residents. Rents in Prospect Heights are increasingly beyond the means of most working-class families, said Councilmember James. We must preserve this community’s diversity. James and Senator Montgomery both characterized the push to evict 533 Bergen’s tenants as secondary displacement from Atlantic Yards. Brent Meltzer, a lawyer with South Brooklyn Legal Services who is representing one of the tenants, noted that if the landlords succeed with the evictions, 3,500 square feet that four families live in will be given over to just one family. The most basic articulation of the situation, however, came from Rosa Negron, one of 533 Bergen’s residents: How you going to evict people who’ve been living here all these years?
Anyone know what the final result of the couple from Brooklyn who bought a 12 or 14 unit Rent Stabilized building on East 3rd Street in the east village. I believe they have evicted a number of tenants in the hopes of making a grand 12,000 sq ft home.
Also I believe Steve Croman, (a alleged slum lord) tried to do the same thing a few years ago with a building on the Upper East side.
What is the status of these similar cases? This would give an indication of how viable this would be.
10:39,
You are relying on the same tactic that will surely fail these protesters: shame. Your comparison of this case with the appalling human rights abuses of Iran is outrageous. Plus, hyperbole is hardly an effective tactic of debate.
Two couples buy it together but only one couple gets a triplex.What does the other get.A floorthru,or just the bill.This does not make sense.If you needed another couple to help you buy, you more than likely need rental income. So would the other couple as well.Sounds like an excuse to get them out. I am a Brooklyn landlord and have seen people try to get away with just about anything.Just because you own a parcel of land in this city,does not mean that you can crap all over people who do not.
“There are few cases in capitalism where one person’s consumption directly causes someone else’s suffering, but that is the case here.”
I don’t disagree with everyone here, but as to the above quote: wake up! Where do you think all those cheap goods American consumers demand come from? Near-slave like conditions in developing countries. And these low-price goods cause factories here to close or de-unionize, causing… suffering.
Hey, I’m a pragmatist. This is the world we live in. But don’t go around saying that the human cost of unfettered capitalism is low.
I love how the entitled gentry on this site always manage to come up with comments like “buy your own damn house”, or “living there for next to nothing”, and my favorite, “these renters could have bought property, but did not, tough luck”. You have absolutely no clue about what living in poverty is like, and probably could not survive six weeks if you were suddenly in those same conditions. The empathy on this site is almost nonexistant.
You also have no idea how hard it is to buy property in this city. Even people making much more than all of these people put together, have a hard time saving for a down payment and closing costs. How are you supposed to do it living in poverty? You are assuming that while they were living it up “living there for next to nothing”, they were making what you make. Not.
I agree with the poster who asked why they didn’t buy a house without rent stabilized tenants, and I am also sure they benefited from a lower sales price precisely because of those tenants. It may be legal to evict them, but it certainly is heartless, cold and calculating. I would not be able to sleep in my posh triplex knowing that several families were out in the cold because of me.
Is there a reason for the owner of a property like this one to be in effect subsidized by having a limited property tax assessment? Perhaps owners of small homes who benefit from that subsidy ought to incur some social obligations in turn.
The people who bought this house are suckers and are in for a long hard battle. Anyone who knows anything about real estate in NYC knows not to get into this kind of situation. All the laws in NYC are pro-tenant and the eviction cases can go on for years. The buyers clearly had terrible advice from someone to have bought a house with four rent controlled tenants. I predict they go completely broke from legal fees. It doesn’t really matter who’s right and who’s wrong, the long and short of it is that it’s going to be a nightmare for the owners.
Obviously the owners got a much lower price on the buildign since it was rent stabilized. Multi-unit properties with rent stabilized are significantly cheaper than a 1 to 3 family of the same size.
In the same light, this building most likely needs significant renovation to be converted.
I feel it is the new owners right to take over the building for their personal use. However, I propose the law be amended. There should be a checks and balance clause. Maybe the new owners need to prove they are living in the building the way they stated within 3 years. Potentially add another clause that states they have to live in the building for a specific period of time like 5 years. Also, add a significant tax hit if they don’t meet these time requirements. This is what many of the city’s housing works programs require. This way it prevents someone from clearing a building out, rehabbing it in a year or two and turn around and flip it.
No, these laws were created firstly to control the cost of housing during WWII because the city was filled to the max with workers. They were then expanded in the 1970s because of the severe inflation – it was no different than other price controls implemented by Nixon.
In case you haven’t noticed, apartment buildings USED to be nice. Landlords once provided great apartments and lots of them. Apartments didn’t become dumps until rent control, because it was simply not profitable to do any renovation or repairs.
Now, it is far to risky in general to building rental housing.
This issue is not about a loophole. The city realized the citizenry would up in arms if they couldn’t even control the rental apartments in their own homes. The property in question here IS A HOUSE! It was divided into apartments probably during the 1950s, and now someone wants to turn it back into a house. This is not abuse, and the law has always allowed this.