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
David – Maybe i have totally forgotten math but the numbers in your work up don’t seem to make any sense. How does a 14% increase in rentroll guarantee you a 14% return on 100k. Plus i don’t see how you got the 14% in the first place. Furthermore you seem to be assuming no one is over 65 or disabled. As someone who lived in a building that was all RS/RC tenants (including myself) i have to say about 80% of the building was over 65 and i don’t think this was so unusual.
Plus not ALL rent stabilized buildings are losers, if they were there would be a lot more slums. Clearly some make sense. But the ones that are run into the ground generally do have the tenants with the lowest rent rolls.
“Tenants are a pain in the the a$$ – it is just like any business were you have the public as customers (only worse), but that is the business and if you know what you are doing you can make alot of money and give tenants a decent place to live too”
And you people wonder why tenants direspect you? FYI- I didn’t realize a tenant was an afterthought but hey, what’s the sense of having an apartment building with no tenants. who cares if they have decent living conditions or not so long as you can stuff your pockets.
Anon 2:29- then I’m in good company, no?
Dear 2:24,
Who is being an ass in this thread?
you!
If you replace the building windows it is 1/84th. And you’re right some tenants don’t like it, and generally those same tenants complain it is too cold and drafty in their apartments. (i.e. they will always complain)
Tenants are a pain in the the a$$ – it is just like any business were you have the public as customers (only worse), but that is the business and if you know what you are doing you can make alot of money and give tenants a decent place to live too.
There is simply no long-term economic benefit to run a building into the ground. Years ago when people had doubts about the viability of the cities and tenants were hard to come by and banks wouldnt loan any $ – then maybe it made sense to put as little into the buildings as possible – because there was a real risk that the property would soon be worthless. But thankfully those days are long past. Landlords who let their buildings fall apart are either out for a real quick buck or incompetent – or a bit of both.
This plan is supported by the REBNY and other LL groups and really is no big deal. The only problem I see is that many of the tenants living in the squalid conditions described, live in buildings owned by NYC.
tenants get socked for everything- like a new refrigerator because the old one finally died. A 3004 appliance that teants pay for forever because the raise is permanent. Give me a break. for a leaking roof? Why shouldn’t that come under a warrant of habitability? tenants don’t hate improvements- jeesh you coop people are so damn smug and arrogant- and you are not privy to people’s finances so blanket statements as to hating improvemnts or wanting to be victims is simply you being an ass.
David,
I also recall from my experience in the coop I mentioned previously that tenants hated improvements like new windows because they knew they would get socked with 1/40th of the cost (as it pertained to their unit of course) forever. It did add up. They would try to block the workmen and call the police claiming harassment. A comedy. Some of the more savvy ones -especially the folks with attorney children or grandchildren, would not pay without a court order let me tell you. I don’t think I agree with you that RS buildings are “gold mines”. Mines of acid reflux maybe.
Oh please- do any of you even have a clue as to “habitability” or “safety?” What a bunch of racist,ignorant, money grubbing moralistic prigs you people are. I guess everything is money- but when you live in an apartment where ceiling fall in on you and electrical wiring is sticking out of the built in light fixtures, or you fall down the stairs because the steps have been broken for 5 years and you die from a broken neck, you might see things a little differently. And not to put too fine a spin on it, but if being a landlord was a money-losing proposition how come so many of you want to be landlords? FYI- you can’t be a landlord without tenants and maybe if they were treated a little better, they’d be better tenants. cause and effect.
Anon 1:30- you are right. According to RS laws, those are maintainence. Many of the posters on this board love to forget that the laws involve the building safety.
Anon 1:41- unless you are a professional psychologist please refrain from exercising your very poor analytical skills. Frankly admitting to having been a coop board member is hardly a recommendation for fairness, honesty or intelligence.
And the idiot who said RC’RS =slums- you so obviously have no idea about this- rc’rs apartments are all over the city including places like Brooklyn Heights, riverdale and the Upper East & West sides- and not just above 110th St. Lets not do the KKK thing and blame minorities for the problems of the City. You people are definitely part of the problem, not the solution.
You are correct, many upgrades or repairs (like painting or fixing a leak) cant be passed on as MCI’s but Major improvements can be. Additionally if a tenant agrees (not likely) or moves you can get a MCI increase of 1/40th the cost per month (forever)for many renovations to the apartment, in addition to any vacancy increases.
Anyone who thinks that there is no money to be made in RS rental buildings b/c the rents are too low is missing a huge opportunity. There are many factors that can make such investments difficult (Courts, Horrible tenants, high purchase prices, etc…) but if you find a RS building with low rents, decent tenants and alot of old infrastructure – you might very well have a gold mine, if you have the $, expertise and commmitment to work the building.
An upgrade?
like putting in a Jacuzzi?
I think the regs mean capital improvements, ie: new windows, parapet reconstrcution, new roof.
NOT re-painting fire escapes, repairing windows, patching flooring.
You pass along 1 fortieth of the cost to the tenants every month. that’s what I recall when I was on the board of a coop with rent regulated tenants who did not want to buy their units at a steep discount because it would have fundamentally wrecked their identities as victims.