Council OK's 'Full-Court Press' Against Slumlords
To date, the city has had limited powers to force negligent landlords to bring their buildings up to code. That changed yesterday when the City Council passed the Safe Housing Act which empowers (requires, actually) the Department of Housing Preservation and Development to identify 200 problem buildings a year and go after their owners to…
To date, the city has had limited powers to force negligent landlords to bring their buildings up to code. That changed yesterday when the City Council passed the Safe Housing Act which empowers (requires, actually) the Department of Housing Preservation and Development to identify 200 problem buildings a year and go after their owners to make repairs. Under the bill, if an owner does not comply, the city may do the improvements itself and send the owner the bill. If he refuses to pay, the city may place a lien against the house and ultimately seize the property. This bill is a full-out, governmental full-court press against slumlords in the city of New York, said Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker. The scope of the bill, which was sponsored by Letitia James, includes not only smaller, short-term problems like a faulty radiator but entire system upgrades. Mayor Bloomberg is expected to sign the bill within the next 30 days and become law within the next six months.
Council Passes Bill Enabling City to Fix Worst Buildings [NY Times]
City To Get Tough On Negligent Landlords [Brownstoner]
Photo by dubsyuhs
Jake ignores, of course, that the fact that his market contained Rent Stabilized apartments lowered his initial purchase price in the first place.
Adding to Babs- all over Brooklyn Heights; and Schermerhorn St.- that group of 3 beautiful townhouses behind the Brd. of Ed are RS/RC,- beautifully kept and no broken sidewalks. people who say that RS/RC means slum buildings don’t know what they are talking about.
David,
You’re not taking into account that “buildings” really aren’t rent stabilized. Individual apartments may or may not be rent stabilized. In my buildings, for example, about half are and half aren’t.
If I were to get a new roof, the MCI increase would only affect half my tenants (the rent stabilized ones) and the return you talk about would be reduced by half.
The main benefit of MCI increases is obviously to raise rent stabilized rents, but it’s more of a psycological increase than a truly financially beneficial one. Folks paying $635.27/mo for a two bedroom in the Village hate it when their rent increases $15/mo even if the building was improved. It’s human nature to want a good deal and what’s better than having somebody else pay your way? What a joke!
I would have renovated my public hallways long ago, but I don’t want to make my buildings any more attractive than they already are for the rent stabilized tenants. I’m sure many other landlords neglect their common areas for the same reasons.
Rent Stabilized tenants do not make landlords any money. Getting out rent stabilized tenants and increasing rents on market rate tenants is the way landlords make money.
You’re obviously not a landlord. For the record, Bloomberg and his property tax increases are hurting landlords way more than anything else, rent stabilization included. My property taxes have gone up about ten fold in the last ten years. It’s crazy.
The funny thing is that local politicians claim they want to promote affordable housing, yet they’ve jacked property taxes through the roof. 99% of the reason that I’ve jacked my rents lately for my market rate tenants is because if I don’t, my income will drastically decrease due to rapidly rising property taxes.
What a hoot — so would you be referring to 80 Cranberry as a micro-slum then? That building has a concierge and several porters, yet most of the apartments there are stabilized. Many people on this thread don’t seem to realize just how bad conditions are in a REAL slum — and it’s not just a question of a building looking a bit run-down or less-than-pristine. And I know plenty of rent stabilized buildings that are very nicely maintained as well. And, yes, landlords do love those MCI increases — just about every landlord I know totally gut renovates stabilized apartments once they become vacant, thereby pushing the rent ever-closer to that magic $2000 figure — and still they are a good deal. You can get a huge two room studio in an elevator building Oncean Ave on the stretch from Regent Place down to Ditmas for slightly over $1000 — rent stabilized and these buildings are in good shape.
And studios in 80 Cranberry start at $1500, when available, so I think its owner is doing just fine, thank you.
You can tell the RS buildings in Brooklyn Heights a mile away. They are the ones with the broken sidewalks, the bare bulb fixture by the entry, the circa 1960 banged up garbage cans next to the door, the dead shrubbery, and in some cases the Garden State brickface over the early nineteenth century facade. They are micro-slums there is no doubt about it.
Anon 4:46- I totally disagree that RS/RC creates slums. They are all over the city in many different neighborhoods, including some of the highest end neighborhoods like Brooklyn Heights. So your theory does not hold water.
There’s a lot of reasons for slums- are you going to blame the turn of the century slums on? RS’RC laws didn’t come into being until long after that.
The City is a macrocommunity and as long as people think that market value is the single determinant of a good economy, it’s because you fail to understand that the economy is made up of many parts that work in tandem. Upset the balance and it affects everything up and down the line. When you push poor or middle class people out of their neighborhoods, you force them further away from jobs, and you force out entire consumer markets.
Who’s gonna serve you your expensive dinner when there are no waiters who can afford to live close enough to work in the restaurant. Who’s going to clean your offices? Nursemaid your kids- you don’t value these people, you don’t care if they have amenities, or decent housing that’s convenient to work, but you do want to make money off of them and you need their services. Quite the conflict. So one way of loooking at it would be to say that those who force out those who can’t afford their killing rents are really hurting all the rest of us. Not the other way around.
The correct spelling is glutton and anon. My reading comprehension may be bad but at least I can spell. On second thought, forget that. For all you say- and yes you are saying the law is a good idea- you still make it sound like providing a tenant with a decent place to live is secondary to you making gobs of money. That makes them an afterthought. You think a burst pipe isn’t a pain to the tenant? How about having all your clothes ruined? Or losing 100 hard earned dollars worth of food because the refrigerator that’s been making bad noises for a year finally gave out? Or falling on the stairs in the dark because the light wasn’t fixed in the hallway and cracking your knee? Tenants give as good as they get. And no matter how much landlords twist and turn, without tenants, you ain’t.
On another level- and this is not directed at you David- there’s the fact that unsafe buildings are dangerous. Money, no money, if you’re a landlord you went into it with your eyes open. It’s your responsibility to provide a safe place for tenants to live- it doesn’t have to be pretty, doesn’t have to have the granite counter tops and vessel sinks. It has to be safe. And that includes doors and roofs properly maintained, lighting, stairs and floors, plumbing, electrical, bug and vermin infestations- when it involves human lives, it’s the landlord’s responsibility. If you don’t feel you are making money and you can’t or won’t take care of your responsibility, get another line of work.
When I said RC/RS=slums, I don’t mean that a given RC building is automatically a slum.
What I meant, although it should be obvious, is that a booming city with RC/RS laws creates slums, as a byproduct of those self-same laws.
Even if only 1 in 100 RC building is a slum, doesn’t change the fact that they exist because of the laws.
The downside of trying to artificially hold down market prices is the creation of the odd random and dangerous slum now and again.
Let the market operate and find its own level, and there the term “slumlord” passes into history.
If you invest 100K on a roof and pass on all of it, over 2+yrs you will be entitled to increase the RR by approx 14,200 a year (that is 1/84th of the cost*12 months). And $14,200 is 14.2% of 100K. This increase ignores normal RS escalations.
Being over 65 or disabled does not exempt you from these increases – having a valid SCRIE or DRIE (Sr Cit or disability exception) prevents these increases from bringing those tenants rent to higher than 1/3 total disposable income. So you are technically correct that you may not be able to pass on 100% of the cost, but it is unusual to have a building that is 80% over 65. And besides if you did then there would be plenty of $ to be made with such a building since vacancy increases would be huge given the lifespan of the average person.
As for Annon@2:42 apparently your reading comprehension is as bad as your attitude… I never said tenants were an afterthought and I also said that there is no legitimate excuse for not providing tenants with a decent place to live. In fact I am the person saying that this law is a good idea, will have zero effect on good LLs and that RS housing can be very profitable at the same time that you provide people with a nice place to live.
But tenants can be a pain in the a$$….so what…all businesses that deal with the ‘public’ are hard. I am not saying that you should disrespect the tenants (in fact just the opposite), but if you think getting a call at 2am b/c a pipe burst or having to deal with arguments between neighbors, or bed bugs etc…. isnt a pain in the a$$ then you are a glutten for punishment.