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?
If Letitia James is so concerned about the welfare of these families, then perhaps she should rent them rooms in her brownstone.
This “shame, shame, shame” tactic is so outdated and will definitely not work in this case.
there are probably more extreme examples of abuse, but it underlines the complications involved when somebody buys a building with tenants. the owner-occupancy allowance wasn’t intended to be used to empty out an entire building, but i doubt it’s specific or strong enough for the tenants to fight.
something probably should be done to protect low-income tenants, but i doubt a capitalist system will provide it. i feel bad for long-time tenants when they say ‘i’ve lived here for 20 years …’ but in this society that doesn’t mean squat. when we leave the job of providing affordable housing to people like Ratner, it’s no wonder the poorest people in the city are sweating.
I think it’s amusing–and very telling–that only the tenants in this story are judged by these posters to have a sense of entitlement. What about the people who bought the building? They feel they’re “entitled” to evict people so that they can own a one-family home. Why didn’t they buy a one-family home if that was what they wanted?
I think the owners are within their right. The only time they are not (and this DOES happen) is when a landlord claims an apartment is for their occupancy–or that of a family member–and they manage to evict everyone. Then they either keep it empty or put a family member in as a place holder for a while. And it was all a plan to empty the building and take all the apartments off regulation. Then they flip it or fill it with new tenants at market rates. Technically legal but that’s kinda shady. But it sounds like these owners really plan to live there so I agree with you all that the tenants really don’t have a case–I guess they are hoping to shames the owners into letting them stay.
These people are doing nothing wrong. They bought the buildings; they plan to occupy them. Ummmmm, I don’t see the problem here, and I don’t see the reason for the protesting.
“The sense of entitlement that is rampant throughout the city has no limits. Why are these people so special that they should prevent someone who has spent tons of hard earned money from using their own space exactly as they wish.”
I agree!
I can’t wait to vote against Tish.
Yep, its definitely the responsibility of these owners to subsidize the housing of these tenants.
“You paid for the property but you’re not entitled to it because I’ve paid under market rent all these years.”
wtf?
The sense of entitlement that is rampant throughout the city has no limits. Why are these people so special that they should prevent someone who has spent tons of hard earned money from using their own space exactly as they wish.
Rent stabilized units are an incredible perk that most of us will never enjoy. Be happy you enjoyed it while it lasted and respect people’s rights to their own property!
Stop the presses!!! The horror!! The humanity!!
An owner wants to occupy the building he or she owns!!!!
What the hell does this have to do with AY?