If a relatively new owner buys a multifamily building, it should be based upon the current rents. If the rents are low, the building should be sold at a price that will allow the building produce sufficient income to pay the note and maintain it. If the rental income is not sufficient to do that then it means that the property is over priced. In other words the value of the building in real life should be based on the current income at the time of purchase not what one thinks he or she can get in the future. Perhaps that will mean that some buildings will not sale or if they do, they will at a reasonable price. For owners who have had their buildings for decades, it would be good to set up a program to allow for low cost loans to complete the work that needs to be done
Los Angeles has the same problem.
1
No sweat. It'll all be fine once Bernie and his fellow socialists take it over.
Government owned housing is always best.
3
I am having similar issues, this time, with the "renovated" brownstones in Central Harlem that have been bought cheaply then renovated in the same fashion, so it seems. The building has received certificate of occupancy 4 months ago, and already has leaks from top to bottom, poor insulation, and yet, landlord makes sure to put in the lease that tenant cannot ask for rent abatement. Have contacted the landlord, filed formal complaint with HPD and nothing happened. These landlords know that the law here, is more on their favor, especially because a lot of these landlord have legal teams working on their behalf.
6
The City of New York "could" set an example, showing Landlords how to rent at below market prices, maintain all their properties, and still pay the bills....but Oh, Right....New York is one of the worst Landlords on the Planet, failing to maintain any kind of basic living and safety standards in the housing owned and managed by the City... What blatant hypocrisy.
7
The landlords in New York are the rats.
13
Someone might question the Office of the Attorney General to question their lack of due diligence on this never ending housing issue. In addition, the Office of Inspector General for HUD, should be tagged for not moving forward with oversight. Finally, where are all the people in Congress for these various districts? I keep reading about the "problem of homelessness" for families to have both safe a clean housing....Hello!....Anyone listening to the sounds of despair?
8
I live in a building that currently has no cooking gas (not since August) and we probably won't have it for another 2 years. I live in a rent-stabilized unit but most of the apartments in the building are coops--so it's a bit of a different issue. Regardless, without boring you with all the details, I went to my local assemblyman's office to get help filing a complaint against my landlord (I'd like to get some form of compensation for not have a working gas stove) and was told that the HPD currently only has about 30 people working there and it takes months and months before they even look at a complaint. The city needs to beef up the HPD, NOT settle and fine these landlords the full amount and I would love to see the NY Times do a complete investigation of the HPD end of this--how fines are settled, etc.
17
Fine them the full amounts, and use the fines to execute the repairs. Settling for pennies on the dollar just encourages them to continue abusing the system.
11
Fines mean nothing. Taking their buildings will wake them up.
12
Apparently, all of the commenters who blame rent control for the problem think that $1,500 a month rent for an apartment in a dilapidated structure in Central Harlem is far too low.
6
And that’s the culture of caring in which 45 was raised.
8
So wait, landlords can negotiate for sharp reductions in the fines they receive and then they rarely even have to pay those, but when I dispute a parking ticket the administrative judge laughs in my face. It's disgusting.
8
Isn't it obvious that the landlord control this City. The continue, as they always have, to get away with murder and no one really does a thing about it. Even if you take them to Court, they dont pay the fine and are allowed to pay some it based on a promise to fix the repairs they were fined for. They don't and get a token fine instead, and this is by accident? I dont think so.
8
Never mind the fines. Go strait to attachment of rents that are being paid in the whole building for anyone who has a history of not fixing problems.
5
Housing has to be considered a basic human right. Low-rent, up to code housing - at no more than 1/3rd of income - must available and provided by NY state law to all who need it.
2
@Matthew Borenstein => Taxes should be lowered, too.
2
rent control is basically slavery, forcing landlords to work for free or substandard income in a system where they cannor recover their costs over time.
5
@Bill Clayton
It is more expensive to kennel your dog in NYC then it is to rent a house in Colorado
Yes yes all of the NYC landlords are suffering. That slummy building with 30 apartments probably cost $15 million dollars and the owner probably has 100 of them.
The simple answer is any politician who dares to even look at this problem will be voted out of office the very next election.
1
"If the landlord refuses to let crews in to address the conditions," the city can sue. WHAT? Push him aside, make the repairs and jail him for obstructing government operations. Then assess -- and collect -- the full fines. Who is being paid off by these slumlords?
5
Thank Ben Carson for making the situation worse.
4
From the landlord's point of you view you are missing an infestation: tenants. For them it is "leaks, mold, roaches, rodents, and [rent-controlled] tenants." in their apartments.
When you have the viewpoint landlords like Trump has, that 'these aren't people, they are animals', than you aren't bothered by the conditions they live in.
But when you learn that a renovated apartment rented for $2,800 while regulated apartments lacked gas for two years in the same building that is simply vindictiveness.
5
Bill DeBlasio is a fraud. Elected as the antidote to the Bloomberg emphasis on luxury housing, he’s done nothing to improve the stock of housing available to the lower and middle class residents of the city. The entire NYCHA is incompetent and needs to be replaced. Read any neighborhood blog and you will be astounded by the number of stories that discuss how landlords use every means at their disposal to drive out existing rent controlled and rent stabilized tenants so that the properties can be rented at market rates. We’re not talking about longtime owners but rather new owners who bought the properties with borrowed money, knowing full well what the existing rent structure was and with the goal of flipping the properties as quickly as possible.
8
I have some advice for this guy. I have an apartment in Las Vegas. I pay $675 for a 1 bedroom/1 bath, right downtown. I can walk to Fremont Street Experience in 10 minutes. I looked around hard and this was the best deal I could find for a purpose-built apartment in this area. I say "purpose-built," because some old motels are being converted into apartments around here, because of high demand for housing. But, those units are studios and they want $700/mo. for them. Am I annoyed by some things about my apartment? Absolutely! But, I can’t find a better deal than the one I have, plus I’m month to month now. So, I shut up! There is a spot on my bedroom wall where some paint peeled off, so I put something in front of it. The toilet was leaking, so I went to Lowe’s and got what was needed to fix it. I haven’t seen bugs, but if I do, I’ll take care of it with some insecticide. For a few bucks here and there, I’m not going to rock the boat with this landlord. At least not until I can find a better deal than the one I'm getting.
1
Once again the Times writes an editorial masked as news. There surely are bad actors in any business but the element missing from this article is a balanced perspective. Never does the Times mention that apartments in the free market have few problems because the rents cover operating costs. Nor does it mention the fact that stabilized buildings operate in a completely different sphere with regulations changing constantly and annual rent increases subject to politics, not costs. By intentionally suggesting that problems specific to a few buildings are citywide issues, the Times is again agitating for political change. The article never mentions the rent most of the tenants in the building pay. What does the woman who has been in the building for 40 years pay? For stabilized apartments there is no connection between the rent collected and the tenants' income. It is not "affordable housing;" wealthy tenants often pay less than newcomers because they have been passing it on for forty or fifty years.
Because of the age of most stabilized buildings, the need for repairs and their cost is far greater than in new buildings that receive tax abatements.
The Times has a responsibility to consult with industry representatives as well as with tenant advocates to provide accurate information.
8
Welcome to the Big Apple!
De Blasio is for sale to contributors who pony up the cash. Who cares about the tenants, they just elected de Blasio. Besides, NYCHA is one of the worst landlords. Maybe the feds should throw de Blasio and his cronies in jail until they fix NYCHA buildings. Just to set an example for the private sector.
2
If you pay 1,500 a month for your NY apartment, well, you get what you pay for!
3
I spend almost 15 years in a hellhole building in Astoria. Dialing 311 is a JOKE. No heat or hot water all winter? Landlord gets 90 days to do a "fix" ie NOTHING until you don't need heat anymore. The pointing was falling off of my building and the plaster in my bedroom had crumbled down to bare brick. The building had a vermin problem. The landlord also filled hallways and stairwells with his personal junk, and the stairs themselves were soft. He was also illegally overcharging me, but I left after 3 years of complaint paperwork mysteriously vanishing into the black hole of housing court.
I have a friend who works in one of warrens of the maze of DHCR and no matter what violation I told him about, I was told that it was "oh, that's a DIFFERENT department." Every building already has a unique ID and should have ALL violations go to ONE office.
I can only conclude that as of now, the City has zero interest in penalizing bad landlords. They want buildings to fall apart and for poor people to leave so that Russian and Chinese millionaires can buy up blocks at a time and sell them as 2-million dollar studios for 20-something Amazon and Google employees. But hey, at least nobody gets stopped and frisked anymore, right, DiBlasio?
7
If NYC is going to insist its the greatest city in the world then it needs to earn that title by demonstrating that its not just the wealthy they care about. Someone must be getting kickbacks!!
It's unconscionable that this nonsense is allowed to continue and the working poor, disabled and elderly living in these buildings are treated worse than third world citizens!
Not to mention the cost to the taxpayer in the form of increased health costs (Medicaid/Medicare) due to the medical conditions that living in such squalled conditions create!
4
This is an example of why the Mayor of NYC should have deep managerial experience unlike the incumbent.
elephant in the room : massive corruption at DOH. Anyone who tried to complain by calling 311 knows what I'm talking about.
5
Don't worry be happy. When the Flip flop Gov and Mayor DeBlasie Blasie . Make weed legal next year. it'll cure all of NY City's problems. Everyone will high and nothing will matter. That's what they want. To make the sheeple docile. Business as usual. Problem solved.
3
TeamBalanitiscomposedthisditty (sung to the tune from Joni Mitchell's 'Both Sides Now'): Leaks and mold and roaches too ... my New York apartment's like a zoo! Those little creatures come and go ... around my feet and on my toes. The mold stink's so great I hold my nose ... It grows as thick as a fire-hose ... Apartment owners, they don't care ... repairs and maintenance really rare ...They realy, really, really, don't give a care.
The Comptroller's report indicating the possibility of an "unintended impression" given by the city of being soft on landlords (due to the city's willingness to settle fines for a fraction of what they could demand)--is a farce. When an entity like NYC behaves routinely in such a pattern for that long of a time, only a fool or a liar would reach a conclusion that the impressions were unintentional. What we need to understand is why the powers-that-be in NYC government (including housing court judges) want low-income/middle-class people out of the apts in the first place, and to figure out how to stop them from continuing in this obviously intentional policy. Withholding rent while simultaneously documenting the landlords' negligence, and taking other aggressive steps, are necessary when dealing with the landlords from hell described in this article.
1
This can’t be true - N.Y. liberals have been telling us In Flyover Country (a/k/a “Red States”) we’re stupid, ignorant, racist, misogynist, and generally evil because we supported a presidential candidate who believes large government is not the most efficient or effective mechanism to fix problems.
NYC has a bloated bureaucracy devoted to regulating housing and it can’t solve these basic problems ...
Maybe President Trump was right all along.
2
Ouch. What a way to end an article.
I’m trying to imagine the editor reviewing this story and deciding if they want to end the story on that note.
I’m glad the Times is doing this story but I wish we’d see an occasional article about tenants from hell because there’s 10 of them for each terrible landlord just because there are so many more tenants than landlords, so please give this a thought Times writers. I’ve been on both sides and don’t think I’ve ever read a story about the crazy people who rent. I know it’s not going to be as popular with the readers who are more likely to rent than be a landlord but there’s some stories here, too. Thanks.
6
Where’s the tale of two cities mayor? How will anything be fixed or inspected properly when the offices of the nyc buildings dept has had scaffolding around their offices for years.
After reading another affordable housing story from NYC, I have thought carefully about what I might contribute. Here it is: In the neighborhood I live in, we have an HOA ( home owner's association). As a homeowner, I agree to abide by deed restrictions. If I do not keep my house and lot within deed restriction guidelines, the HOA can, at my expense, provide the solution ( a forced lawn mow or fence repair for instance) and I get the bill. Period. If I don't pay, I cannot sell my house, and in theory, I could be foreclosed on. The debt could be reported to a credit bureau in theory as well.
NYC, just update your regulations through the typical political quagmire, and "get 'er done" as we say in Texas. So NYC, get in there, fix it yourself, and bill the landlords. One neat trick is to forgive PART of any unpaid landlord debt and report it to the IRS as income on the landlord side. Here's the deal -- play hardball or don't -- but don't pretend you are doing something when you obviously aren't. We can all see -- even those of us who don't vote in your elections. The system is clearly the problem.
7
The only way that the city will be able to effectively address landlord malfeasance is to fully collect on all fines, and criminally prosecute every instance of perjury to the fullest extent that the law allows.
Otherwise, citizens will no choice but to conclude that the individuals responsible for enforcement have been corrupted by money and other inducements.
5
The best thing to do with lead paint is to cover it with wallboard. If you try to remove it, you scatter particles everywhere, they get into dust on the floor and can be eaten or inhaled by small children. Once covered, it is safe. The same applies to asbestos.
5
I am truly puzzled how someone could enter a building that's dilapidated but think the one renovated apartment will be fit to live in. Roaches, mice, and rats are as happy in a crumbling kitchen as they are in one that's got granite countertops. Were someone to walk into a building like Mr. Salazar's old place, I like to think they'd run out long before considering signing a lease. I know NY real estate is tough, but in a situation like this, common sense should prevail.
And shame on those landlords on providing such awful living conditions and the city for letting them get by. Most can clearly afford the repairs, and if not, they should sell to someone who is better fit to manage a building. My husband owns several properties, and we manage each like we live there ourselves. It's the best way to sleep at night (and we also get good word of mouth when finding new tenants).
14
Mr. Polanco’s hallway looks exactly like my old building. I swear, the paint and the tiles are identical. Even the doors are the same. I'd say it was the same building except we lived north of 136th and we did not have an elevator.
Our apartment probably cost about $1500 a month without renovations. We never paid that much though. We we're sharing two bedrooms and a converted living room. After inflation, you might pay $800 today including utilities.
I'm sure zero repairs have been done since I left. We used to simply bribe the property manager to get things fixed. "Bribe" is perhaps the wrong word. I should say "independently contracted at a highly discounted rate."
We weren't even the primary lease holder so how much could we complain?
Anyway, he fixed most problems well enough. Throwing a few hundred dollars towards maintenance every year seemed like a reasonable price to pay. After a few big upfront costs, you didn't even notice the expense.
1
Never mentioned here is the ample possibility of payoffs, an enduring institution in this industry. If a congressman can be bought for a few thousand in campaign contributions, how much do you think these housing inspectors go for? You could buy them by the bushel.
6
Not just the inspectors, the entire DOB and the judges.
3
The amount of time we spend trying to rectify the disconnect between our laws and reality is pretty amazing, to say the least. One would think after a while we’d learn better than to write them in the first place. At least homelessness solves one problem. I think paint was designed to peel so I’d forever have to keep buying more.
1
You can be sure if poorer landlords owned rental properties, the City of NY would go after then much harder and with higher fines.
7
Failure to make timely repairs can cause fires or other problems resulting in tenant deaths. Why not make failure to make timely repairs a crime that results in a large fine and a few months in jail?
5
Even with the purported goal of focusing on fixing the problems and not punishment, it's curious how low these negotiated fines are. The whole idea of a fine is to make it onerous for the property owner to ignore problems. These low amounts are practically incentivizing the bad behavior.
The city needs to give their own attorneys the resources to enforce these fines in full - no settling to save the city money. Levy a tax on developers to pay for it.
5
Absolutely correct. Fines should be 1000% without exaggeration. The system incentivizes criminal behavior, literally.
1
Many of these buildings were likely purchased at so high a price that there is little left for repairs. The property prices should be far lower, and would be lower if the city penalized landlords who didn’t make repairs.
2
NYC has to change its political norms. This abuse is an obvious platform to run for office on. Who will step up?
4
It looks like all these landlords understand is money. With a person like that society has to impose much higher fines to get through to them.
7
For starters, the city needs to require new landlords seeking to purchase buildings to have cash on hand for repairs not performed by the selling landlord - an 80% minimum threshold, untouchable, for repairs only.
The repairs and assessments can be calculated by the city and an independent third party. Repairs must follow a reasonable scheduled start/completion date.
This will incentivize landlords wanting to sell to maintain their buildings.
And landlords who refuse to make proper repairs/maintain buildings must face maximum financial penalties, seizure of assets, and prison time. All three, not either/or.
It’s clear that NYC’s rental bureaucracy does not have tenants’ livilhood in mind. Only landlords and their liquidity and ease of owning/selling in perpetuity, consequence- and responsibility-free.
We voters must demand to know what plans mayoral candidates have to remedy the housing crisis and renegade landlords.
9
What you need is to put some of these landlords in jail and wAtch how fast they make changes. Deblasio doesn’t care unless you have deep pockets to build a high rise and fund his next election.
12
You really need to read this article together with the article “I’m Petitioning...for the Return of My Life” 12/7/18 describing how the city allows city appointed legal caregivers to drain dry the bank accounts of tenants said to be unable to care for themselves. There’s a pattern here of taking from the powerless unto the last cent while pampering the powerful and enabling them at every turn. What’s this all about?
7
It would seem that some officials in the city are being paid off. The same way Trump paid to have his taxes reduced for 40 years on the Grand Hyatt as reported in this paper. NYC just like podunk Louisiana has a long tradition in official corruption.
11
Part of the disgust of living in New York. Landlords don't spend a penny to update the old building and problems are chronic with rents high. Supers don't respond to requests. Such is the good life that all call the glamorous upper east side.
7
What an absolute travesty. It is a crime that NYC has a glut of high luxury apartments and condos and yet has a homeless problem. It’s no secret the games that landlords play in NYC to rid their buildings of rent controlled apartments. And the city’s excuse for not coming down on these landlords? That they’re afraid if they penalize landlords too much then they won’t have the money to fix problems. Are you kidding me?! Those who deny others a decent place to live should be made to live in the dilapidated apartments themselves.
14
The Agency’s focus is severely misguided.
If a landlord breaches its duty to provide a tenant an apartment that is habitable, then the Agency should impose a high enough fine to deter such actions from being committed by this landlord and others in the future.
By imposing such low fines the Agency is incentivizing landlords to continue to breach their duties to their tenants because landlords are not concerned about the consequences.
Moreover, the Agency’s counter-argument is counter intuitive. The Agency wanted to ensure the landlords had the requisite capital to repair or replace anything that was in violation of its rules. But the Agency should not be concerned about the welfare of the landlord whom it is investigating i.e. it should not be worried about the financial health of the landlord when determining a proper penalty. That is the sole duty of the landlord.
If the landlord carelessly and negligently handles his or her business, then that landlord should suffer the consequences of conducting his or her business so poorly.
11
Or just allow the tenant to legally rent strike until repairs are made.
9
@South Of Albany
Allowing the tenant to legally rent strike until repairs are made would clear up the problem so fast. This is the best solution.
2
These kind of chronic abuses should lead to the city seizing the property and running it as a trust/cooperative apartment building, maintaining it well for future generations. These buildings are resources, not just private property.
15
@John Krumm Oh, yeah, there's a real solid solution! Read the many articles here about how well the city maintains the buildings it already owns!!
Wake up and smell the coffee --- it's a fairly well known phenomenon, that if the government expropriates people's property and imposes rent controls on it, the result is deterioration of the property. And really, why should it be different? If people are not permitted to demand the income they need to pay for what are often very expensive repairs, then it should be forbidden to force them to make the repairs.
So, as I see it, we are looking at this situation the wrong way. Yes, these problems in the apartments SHOULD be fixed -- no one should have to live in these conditions. But it's not the landlord who should pay for these repairs. The party responsible for paying for these repairs is the same party which is responsible for depriving the property owner of their proper rent -- the government. Simply put, if you wont' allow a landlord to collect reasonable rents, that landlord should then be freed from all responsibility for repairs to the building, which should be transferred to the government which is expropriating his property through rent control.
And my guess is that if the government had to pay for these repairs, seeing how expensive they were, they would get rid of rent control/rental stablization and then free up the landlord to run his own business in a way that doesn't result in inevitable deterioration of buildings.
30
The government does pay these landlords. These are rent stabilized units we’re talking about. Landlords receive annual tax credits for being in the stabilization program. This is just greed to flip units to market rate. Landlord should just buy out tenants if they have issues with maintaining building in appropriate manner.
4
@Oakbranch It's perfectly possible to be paying market rent in NYC and still living with rats, roaches and mold and your landlord is like "What roaches? Oh, and by the way, the rent is going up 25% next year."
Rent controlled units are only a very small part of the entire housing market anyway; please don't try to make it sound like the poor real estate developers are starving.
3
@Oakbranch Golly, Oaks. These landlords aren't exactly babes in the woods. They bought the buildings knowing that there are rent controlled apartments in them. A bit disingenuous to cry poor-mouth later on. Rent control has been around for a gazillion years now.
I'm more curious about why the fines are so minimal. Is there bribery (I'm shocked, shocked....) ? Is this policy? Perhaps the mayor could answer the question. I sort of get the feeling that the Times has published its annual story about this, and now will be hands-off until another year goes by.
1
People have a right to a decent living environment. If Landlords can't provide this after being cited, they should be put in jail. Period.
11
Says who ?
Tenants have the right to rent apartments at the prevailing market rate. You don’t have the right to live in my building. If you don’t like my building, or you don’t like my maintenance, or you can get a better deal elsewhere - move.
Here’s an even better idea. Put your money at risk buying a property and renting it - then you can only whine to yourself.
2
Rent control. This can probably be explained by city rules requiring low rents, making it difficult for landlords to afford the necessary investments. Allow rents to float in the market would eliminate much of this ugly problem.
5
The story highlight why people have no faith in politicians. New York City representatives spend more time on tv than doing there jobs. Giving out parking tickets but can’t get boilers fixed, these housing issues have gone on for decades and no political entity cares. White noise about putting federal government in charge nothing will change for the better. Ben Carson who doesn’t know his job at all since he is a surge. This government treats people no matter there color like animals.
We need to stay in the street till these elites realize that they better fix these buildings. Now we have Amazon Coming in with more lies.
I remember when ms Quinn had the nerve to say she didn’t realize how bad everything was on housing . She knew how to give Bloomberg a third term and she was the city council President for how many years?
6
@ GC got it right. The NY Public Advocate just named NYCHA as the Worst Slum Lord in NYC. Why doesn't the Times focus on the horrific conditions that are affecting 180,000 units controlled by this City Agency and how those repairs have not been made by the City instead of sensationalizing "the evil landlord"....is the City, NYCHA and the people who run NYCHA also 'the evil landlord" ??? We have a Mayor who created a platform for himself by vilifying landlords of rent stabilized buildings. Now the shoe is on the other foot and Deblasio is on the hot seat for being the Worst Slum Lord in the City. It's simple math...very low rents = not enough money to maintain and repair buildings. Deblasio should have thought of that when he was politicizing housing and freezing rent hike. You reap what you sow!
6
@Fair is Fair NYT has covered this extensively.
The Public Advocates office is a pathetic joke. Tish James was notified about this ongoing issue by residents and she did nothing. The worst landlord list that is produced by the Public Advocates office means nothing since you can be on that list year after year after year. With Tish James at AG she has yet to even come up with a plan to make the real estate division of the AG's office more proactive and responsive when it comes to real estate corruption.
4
When landlords can't charge the proper rental because an apartment in rent-regulated he has to cut costs. It is ridiculous that the rents are 20 years behind the times because he is not allowed to raise them enough. The other people in the apartment also pay the price because they have to subsidize the "freeloaders" not paying their fair share. It is one thing for the government to want affordable housing, it is a different reality in the real world where upkeep costs more than the allowable rent. It is not surprising that the landlords want to get rid of rate regulated apartments. Yes, there are greedy landlords who are trying to evade the law, but there are also tenants who are paying far below what a well-maintained apartment costs.
17
Landlords receive tax preferences for rent stabilized units. It’s not government imposed. Landlords signed up for it.
3
There will always be a rationale why those with money are fined and jailed less than those with less power. People who do not vote are consenting to the treatment they get.
Also, the reader comment "If you force landlords to charge below-market rent, the result is below-market conditions". Really? Is the problem here really just insufficient profit margins - or a combination of low pay, low profit, poor government, and greed?
Also, the quote ...“I did not want to bring a new baby into this,” she said." Then she shouldn't have had a baby. The landlords are responsible for the poor conditions, the government for the poor enforcement, she is responsible for her poor decisions.
3
Yesterday was Christmas. I guess Mary shouldn't have had her baby either since she didn't have "proper" living accommodations. Your post blames everyone except the greedy landlords where the responsibility for this situation lies along with City officials who are not enforcing judgments. Your language is so heated one has to wonder whether you are a landlord.
6
So who your landlord is should determine whether or not you should have a baby? Hmmm
8
@JustThinkin' How sad that someone condemns someone who has brought new life into the world as having made "poor decisions."
One of the main reasons deblasio was elected was to stop runaway real estate "development," development being code for the creation of luxury apartments to be sold as investments often to wealthy foreigners, not lived in by New Yorkers. In this area, deblasio has disappointed mightily. He is in thrall to the real estate industry, as every mayor since (and including) Koch has been. They've sold the city. And the city they created is more crowded, more unequal, less creative, less vibrant, less informed, less engaged... renters like those featured in this article are of no concern to the political elite who aim only to serve their masters in the real estate world....this nyc combo of corrupt politicians and corrupt real estate developers gave us Trump, by the way. Nobody ever called Trump to task for his illegal behavior - and now he's our president....
15
@rita Absolutely. And the existing rent controls are mostly a tax scam written with the blessing of the Real Estate Board of NYC.
If you force landlords to charge below-market rent, the result is below-market conditions.
24
The fines should be a percentage of the assessed value if corrective action is not satisfactorily corrected within six months. Complaints should be measured and logged through a phone app that can be developed by high school kids at Bronx Science and other city schools or college computer programs in the city through a competition offering a scholarship prize for a fraction of the price for development. Metrics for multiple complaints can result in sending a city team to look at the damage. The assessment of fines should be consolidated with the annual city tax bill and unpaid assessments should follow the same trajectory as unpaid taxes, ultimately resulting in forfeiture of the building. Get to work city council and pass a bill to increase the fines; it is your job to protect your constituents. The city charges a fine that is less than the price of a developers' wives Chanel bag or a pair of Louboutins. Wake up people! Our city government is not interested in fixing things so replace them with people who will!
94
This is a consequence of rent control. Landlords simply have no incentive to make major repairs on old, dilapidated (or dilapidating) buildings, especially when the income from rent is so low. It's simply not worth it.
Why does the city give such a "light touch" on these landlords? Because if the city came down hard, landlords would abandon their buildings IN DROVES. So, you would have innumerable abandoned buildings with no one willing to buy them. Rent control removes the incentives for landlords to invest in their buildings because it simply (financially) is not worth it.
4
@Catie
Six months! Way too long.
1
plenty of good solutions here...no will to govern by the city
6
While reading your companion article today on the Laotian farmer who won a refrigerator but had no electricity in his village, I thought how sad it was. But this- this is just plain disgusting.
The NYTimes ferrets out scandals, corruption, criminal behavior all over the world, throughout the U.S., yet this treatment of the poor (out here in the hinterlands, $1500 a month is pretty middle class) in these rent controlled pest holes has evidently been going on for years. Right under your nose.
Rats eating the eyes out of parrots. Way late, NYTimes. Way late.
7
If you want to know why the endlessly-empathetic DeBlasio administration appears to be so indifferent to the plight of these tenants, just look up David Bistricer and his firm Clipper Equity. It's not complicated, and doubtless just the tip of the iceberg.
12
HPD says its goal is to correct violations, but its not doing so. Short cuts (patch jobs, wicker work repairs, band-aids) seem to be taken at every step of the process, right to the very end, even after the landlord evicts the tenant and converts the apartment to market rate. Greed, stinginess, and avarice are like the rats in the article. People have no choice, but to continue fighting how ever they can. It would be interesting to know though how exactly did the rats get to eat the one guy's parrots. Did the rats break into the the parrot's cage?
14
@Anthony de Fex
Actually, parrots are generally free range inside a home. You can keep them in a cage but practiced owners will generally advise against this practice for a variety of reasons. Free range house parrots will have a safe space where you keep food and water. However, you wouldn't think of this space as a cage. More like a bird house.
Mr. Salazar's situation is more like coming home to find your cat's eyes and whiskers eaten out by rats. They must have been some big freaking rats and there were probably a lot more than one.
14
@Anthony de Fex So you blame the person who lives in the apartment for RATS eating his parrots? The mind reels.
2
"Even so, the city’s housing department says its goal is to correct violations, not to punish landlords."
Clearly, the city is neither punishing landlords nor correcting problems.
The time has come to make make repeated violations and failure to repair criminal offenses for the corporate or LLP owners and the individuals who are officers of corporate owners. The negligent, reckless, or intentional failure to correct serious violations or failure to pay fines should be punished as felonies. Corporate veils should be pierced and the personal wealth of landlords should be subject to levies , fines and confiscation: not just the property in which the violations have been found.There are ways around any constitutional or legal barriers to such penalties IF our lawmakers have the stomach to go after their biggest contributors.
6
If you are determined to fight economic reality, you will lose every time.
In some cities, rental tenants are valued customers whom landlords are eager to please. Why is this? Because the landlord is making money, and getting a good return on his investment.
New York City is just the opposite, with all the predictable results.
10
@Jonathan
Some landlords, mostly small ones, are loosing money. Many, and especially many large predatory landlords are raking in the cash. They collect rent, make no repairs, use all of the insanely generous tax loopholes that they have bought from legislators and other officials and then drive out tenants when the time comes to gentrify or abandon the buildings when things get too hot for them or the buildings are beyond repair.
11
@Andrew Zuckerman I fail to see how any landlord could make money from a unit which you can only charge $1500/month rent in NYC.
5
I don't understand this broad argument in NYC in 2018. If a building was so unprofitable, selling it would be lucrative in most areas. The city has an online database called 'oasis' that lists property ownership, the the history of and amount buildings were bought and sold for and even property tax statements. Landlords with bigger buildings (and more than one) are making enough money to be secure, not to mention the many loopholes they can use when it comes time to pay taxes. The smaller landlords are the ones with less power, less profit, and more pressure.
2
The reasoning that enforcing stiff fines would be getting in the way of fixing things makes no sense as most of these landlords have plenty of money and are just getting away with being greedy slumlords! I smell corruption and collusion in city agencies and the court system as the real reason we can‘t clean up this swamp. What is most shocking is that the city and the mayor are enabling this kind of behavior.
12
In 2014, for a brief period, I rented a ROOM in a 2 bedroom/1 bath apartment in Harlem. I believe the apartment was originally a 1 bedroom, but the living room was converted into a second bedroom. I paid $225 a week. I assume the guy who was renting the other room was paying the same. That's $1800 for 4 weeks. That was 4 years ago. I'm no expert on NYC apartment prices, but if this guy has his own NYC apartment for $1500, then I have an idea why it's falling apart.
7
@Mark I think you paid too much for your one room...
3
Easy fix.
Tenants make call to 311.
Report problem.
Inspector verifies problem within 24 hours.
Tenant is legally allowed to rent strike until problem is remediated.
If the city made rent abatements proactive ALL problems would be fixed.
It’s a farce that management companies and owners are cash strapped. This is not the 70s. Most NYC building owners are now multinational corporations.
Easy fix.
14
@South Of Albany Not that easy. The landlord can put a tenant on a list if they don't pay and then it will become difficult to find another apartment.
4
I wish it was such an easy fix. We’ve attempted hear steps including holding rent, but the inspectors just show up in the middle of the day and then you have to reschedule and take a day off work. Then the landlord wants to inspect and you have to take a day off work. Then his contractor never shows up. Then a new contractor a does have a job, but they need to come back. Then the harassment starts. The the job never gets completed. Then the inspector comes back, but they didn’t tell you they were coming so you can reschedule in two weeks. It’s a full time job just to get one repair. We currently have 49 open violations and after 4 months have a working sink. On to the next 48. Not an easy fix.
5
Let’s take the #1 offender on the city’s landlord list, Eric Silverstein, and his property at 87-40 165 Street, Queens. It currently has 626 HPD violations. Mr Silverstein could agree to make real — not cosmetic — repairs to the units on a schedule. If he failed to do so, the city could fine him for each count and assess the charges it would take to do the work. Should Mr Silverstein decide not to pay, he could simply walk away from the building, and the city would then sell the property to a buyer who would agree to make necessary repairs and renovations. The building is currently valued at $8 million; if the city sold it for the outstanding fines and liens, on condition that the buyer make a specified list of renovations and repairs, the buyer would get an undermarket deal, the housing stock would be upgraded, the new owner could still make a reasonable return while maintaining affordable rent-controlled units because the mortgage was much lower than the market rate, and the city would be home to working-class people otherwise priced out of the market. Those with the deepest pockets might not like that, but frankly I find it hard to shed crocodile tears for them.
38
This building sits in Senator Brian Benjamin's office. He's known about this since he's been the head of the local community board and when he decided to run for office. He's done nothing to advocate for his constituents. Even worse is this building also sits in former housing chair Keith Wrights district and the party boss did nothing to help these residents. Looks like all the Harlem elected officials have failed the tenants of this building.
15
It simply looks as if the entire City is on the take - and it certainly didn't start with De Blasio.
Rent control that overly restricts raises even if the income of renters goes up is a problem, because it also limits access to housing, and doesn't seem to take into account the cost of major repairs.It's not necessary to eliminate it, but to reform it.
However, the City's approach isn't working, so it needs new ways of pressuring bad and arrogant landlords, and especially of collecting funds for repairs.
Why couldn't the negotiated agreements require bonding? E.g , the extent and cost of repairs necessary to bring an apartment building to code
would be determined. Then, the landlord must put up cash or other assets, or put up a bond to assure that the work will be done, or that monies to cover said work will be available to the city if the landlord fails to make repairs.
The process would also require a formal plan to be filed to address problems and a time line. Upon completion, the landlord would apply for return of the bond. It would still take strong building inspectors working for a serious building department, to monitor the work and see that safety threats do not exist in legal apartments.
10
New York City is an expensive place to live. Maintaining an apartment is expensive. That is why coops and condos charge monthly maintenance that in many cases is higher than the rent for rent stabilized and rent controlled apartments. Those high costs are also why the NYCHA is unable to keep their buildings up to code. The sad truth is NYC is too expansive for many of us. (I escaped to VA where my social security actually support me!). However there is affordable housing elsewhere. Retired and people on government assistance should look elsewhere, upstate NY or down south where the weather is better.
5
Taxes. Coops and condos are paying the majority of maintenance fees in taxes.
Individual share holders and owners pay for their own unit repairs.
Your comment is not accurate.
8
@South Of Albany- My point was the rent paid to the landlord has to cover his taxes and the building maintenance. If the rent doesn't cover those items what is the landlord supposed to do? And what about capital expenses (such as a broken boiler)?
5
Settling for an average 15% of the fine, sounds as if someone is on the "take", follow the money trail.
10
And the City of New York is a terrible landlord too! Money talks, the wealthy have an outsized voice, human beings are in last place, sad.
8
Well what do you expect from all those corrupt, greedy, hate-fillied Republicans running "red" NYC, showing their disdain for the poor and proper governance?!?
Oh, wait, that doesn't fit the approved narrative. Never mind.
3
@George S As opposed to when Giuliani and Bloomberg were in charge and there were no problems like this, right?
Nice try.
5
Cities need to start providing public housing for all citizens (reserving a certain percentage for low-income of course). People need the option to escape either the unsustainable growth of the private housing market or the predations of the slumlords.
We need a new option. I look at renderings of cities of the future and I don’t see how we get there from here without there being a fundamental change in the way we offer housing in densely populated areas. The revenues for public housing for all could then be used to build more housing and gradually a new city could emerge. And I’m not talking Soviet cinder block, modern high-rise buildings are well understood and can be made attractive (I’m thinking of that living high-rise in Italy(?) that has just been built.
Let’s get out of this crazy system that’s not working (except to enrich real-estate developers and landlords) and do something bold collectively for our future.
3
Bravo! @Robert Grant
You’re about 70 years too late. NYC already tried that, it’s called NYCHA, and it’s a complete abomination. Most other cities who tried this misguided experiment of public housing have torn most of it down (e.g., Chicago, St. Louis). The government should get out of regulating housing. Believe me, the “profit hungry” developers will very happily build more buildings. Unless you fundamentally don’t believe in supply and demand, then there is no other solution that exists.
1
The maintenance on my standard issuer UES coop before debt service is around $1500 per month. That is a proxy for what it costs to own and properly maintain a building in nyc. The fact that landlords are collecting less than this amount is a factor in their desire to cut service and avoid costs.
38
@GC NYC landlords are multi-millionaires and billionaires who definitely have more than enough money to fix repairs. They do not want to make repairs to force the tenant to leave so that they can increase the rent for the next unsuspecting tenant. If landlords cannot or will not make the necessary repairs, then they should forfeit the building.
14
@GC...
Ahhh, one data point! That's all we need. The singular of "data" is not "anecdote". "...is a proxy for what it costs to own and properly maintain a building in nyc." Ummm, ok, it's just not a good proxy - more of an opinion.
5
@vikingway2deal how do you know? Some are, but the vast majority are not. You live in a fantasy world. You have no idea how expensive it is to maintain an apartment building, and how difficult it is for some landlords to make ends meet, especially when rents are artificially restricted by rent-stabilization.
4
Landlords should be licensed and rated by the city like restaurants are, A thru F. The rating should be mandatory in all rental advertising, the criterial well designed and understood. Fall below a C for more than a 90 day probation period and your license to operate in the city is revoked, after which you must liquidate your rental assets.
167
@AndyW
The problem is that even landlords who receive an F grade are able to rent out their apartments in NYC. It's a simple issue of supply and demand.
14
As of now, there is no generally applicable requirement that building ownership be disclosed to the city, much less licensed. When I was at the Department of Buildings from 1998-2003, I repeatedly proposed legislation requiring simple disclosure of building ownership. My proposal never got a hearing, let alone a Mayoral signature.
The more intrusive idea of licensing landlords is an interesting one, but it's not new. The concept would require new legislation, and although the idea has obvious appeal, it also has downsides.
First, such legislation would be resisted by the city's very powerful real estate interests. Second, such legislation would be complex. Just for one example, most landlords are corporations - revoke the corporation's license and the corporate owners simply reconstitute under a new corporate name. Disqualify the corporate owners and they simply re-incorporate under the names of relatives. Third, implementation of such legislation would require the creation and funding of a whole new landlord licensing bureaucracy, to do background investigations on every proposed new residential building owner and then to investigate and prosecute license revocation cases. Fourth, requiring an offending landlord to "liquidate its rental assets" assumes that those assets can be readily identified. Landlords who own multiple buildings tend to own them under separate corporate names that can't be tied to each other based solely on public records.
16
That sounds great until you have people on the street but at least we showed that landlord!!
1
These stories are so maddening and exasperating. Tenants, such as myself, are in a much weaker position than any landlord. The landlords have all the power. As such, the City and laws should be protecting tenants.
This means that landlords should have “days” to start fixing problems that have been noted by inspectors, not months or years. And if they don’t, the City should immediately initiate repairs and bill them. And if the landlord tries to deny access to the City to make repairs, they should be immediately arrested.
When landlords start going to jail then maybe they’ll start treating their tenants with a modicum if decency.
10
When "my" 1910 building was sold to developers who would eventually set up a non-eviction condo offering, those developers undertook massive construction in the public hallways and in the non-regulated apartments that were vacant. The original builders used only the finest materials for that time, which meant use of highest quality lead paint that testing showed was at about 40% lead, along with asbestos.
The developers' contractors did not bother with mandated protections and the hallways, floors, and other public spaces were covered with dust. The Residents Association brought in a court-certified expert to take dust and other samples and all brought back results way above the legal limits. There were young children and senior citizens living in the building.
We reported these to NYC's HPD, Dept of Environment and other agencies and all the inspectors would do was talk to the developers' representatives and tell them to do better. Even on the 5th visit for the same infractions, the outcome was that they should really know and do better. Fire Department inspectors found a violation that had a $75,000 (seventy-five thousand dollar) penalty, but didn't levy it; another warning!
This coddling of landlords and developers has to stop! The only way to ensure safe practices and living conditions is to assess the fines called for.
Of course, though, when NYC itself is such a lousy landlord, hello NYCHA, how much in fines would the city be paying itself?!
102
Put ankle monitors on the inspectors and force them to live in these places until actual repairs are made.
23
It’s called criminal. And, the residents should sue. HPD and DOB are used to dealing with landlords. They are there to remedy conditions and are not there to protect tenants.
There is NO thoroughly staffed tenant protection group in NYC. The new anti-harassment unit has 15 employees. It’s a city of over 4 million renters.
As documented, the lack of repairs is a harassment strategy.
27
@JW
I suspect that this building is the Chatsworth on West 72nd Street. It, as well as various properties, was acquired by Zeil Feldman of HFZ. There's thuggish behavior with this company, which is notorious for harrassing rent stabilized tenants. They've been sued numerous times. Problem is that with their deep pockets and a city bought out by new, beyond greedy developers, like HFZ, the cards are stacked against the tenants. The system is filled with crooks and that includes the Landmarks Commission, who've been paid off time and again.
5
I'm curious. Are the property owners tax returns reconciled with the supposed amount of money paid in property maintenance?
3
New York City is a city of, by, and for the wealthy. Why should anybody who is not wealthy expect to live there, or at least to live there under good conditions?
2
@Jim S. As bad as the problem is, this isn't MOST apartments in the city. Anyway, it's still better than Cleveland.
How can any landlord in Manhatten keep an old apartment in good condition if they can only charge $1500 a month in rent? The math just doesn't work.
7
@joe Please explain the math to me. Be very specific, please. Real numbers.
7
Buy the tenant out. It’s not rocket science.
The complaining about the cost of tenants is ridiculous. If you want to charge market rent just buy them out. The landlords have the money.
3
@Martin We own a 2 bedroom condo in Boston, where housing isn't as crazy as it is in NYC but just as old. We have paid off our mortgage. In a normal year, meaning there are no big projects costs more than $5k, we spend ~$1200 on tax, insurance, HOA, small maintenance per month. In a year that there are big projects, the cost per month can easily reach $1600-2000.
2
We put a man on the moon and we can’t fix this? Come on, follow the money trail. Someone in City Hall could be getting “donations” for their political runs.
6
The incompetency at HPD is breath taking on a daily basis. At public hearings it was asked how HPD screens their property managers, how they contract their buildings to property managers. To date after foil requests, emails to commissioners and staff their were no response. This is what should be investigated by the NY Times. Maybe property managers should be graded like restaurants are in NY.
8
“The median settlement was $4,000.”
I’m sure the lobbyists at the RSA and REBNY are happy with this statistic. The millions they spend at City Hall and in Albany is obviously achieving the desired effect. What a colossal joke HPD is. Eliminate HPD and start over. The whole thing is a sham. The housing court is worse. It has simply added a nice gloss of legality to the whole game. De Blasio once published a worst landlords list. I’m sure landlords would put him high on their best mayors list. Pathetic.
7
One of the main reasons is that the city doesn’t care. One of the worst landlords in the city of New York is the City of New York. Look no further than the NYCHA. That should tell you everything you need to know. Unless you are well heeled, you are on your own.
16
This Friday WNYC’s Brian Lehrer will have Mayor De Blasio on for his weekly call in which most likely will touch on this article. As usual, De Blasio will respond “we’re doing the best we can” or some other non answer; just as he does when confronted with NYCHA failures. Mr. Mayor, the city must to go after these criminal landlords with real fines and jail time. What are you waiting for??
8
Campaign donations. And. Problem that only affects the working class.
6
“Once they do, landlords can renovate, raise the rent and, ultimately, move the apartment into the free market, exacerbating the city’s housing crisis.”
Is that a fact? There are many who believe that allowing government to meddle with the free market (through rent regulation) exacerbates the housing crisis, not the other way around...
8
@Patrick There are many who also believe that giving massive tax break to the wealthy and corporations will "trickle down" and raise all boats, despite the fact that economic data over the last 70 years has shown that "fact" to be nonsense.
6
I was assistant commissioner at the Department of Buildings for code enforcement from 1998-2003. I was a big advocate of using fines to drive code compliance. In just five years, I pushed fine collection from $5 million to $20 million per year. What I learned is that collecting fines assessed against building owners is more complicated than this article conveys.
The building on W. 136 St. is illustrative. The DOB website shows that the building has many unrepaired violations and over $100,000 in unpaid fines. If compelled to pay large outstanding fines or make major repairs, landlords always have the option of declaring the building bankrupt and walking away from it, leaving a decaying, money-losing hulk in City hands - and we all know how good the City is at managing residential properties.
Even if the landlord is of good faith, forcing payment of huge fines diverts the very funds desperately needed to make repairs.
Finally, forcing payment of fines is not simple; it's a labor-intensive. multi-agency effort. Landlords' assets like bank accounts have to be located and seized, which involves issuing subpoenas to banks one after another until an account is found, then obtaining a garnishment order. We once tracked down and took a landlord's boat from him, which we could do only because he made the mistake of owning the violating building personally and not through a corporation - and even that brought us no closer to code compliance.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
17
You are part of the problem. The easiest solution for landlords that refuse to comply is for the city to seize the building and sell it for well below market value with the stipulation that tenants cannot be removed and all outstanding repairs be made. I am sure many would find a cheap, money producing building very attractive even when factoring in the cost of repairs.
NY is just coddling the rich at the expense of the middle class.
Also a system such as those used at restaurants that would require a large sign with their inspection rating be prominently displayed and required in all ads for apartments.
22
@Paulie
The city tried that, in large volume, under Mayors Koch and Dinkins. What they found was that almost all of the seized buildings had negative net value and therefore couldn't be given away, let alone sold. The result was a major public policy disaster: whole neighborhoods of decrepit, money-losing rental properties that had become the daily responsibility of taxpayers - including you, Paulie, if you lived or worked in NYC.
Also, by the way, seizing a building is extremely difficult - as it should be, if you think about it. It should never be easy for the government to take a major piece of private property from its legal owner, and, not surprisingly, the law imposes lots of obstacles to such seizures. By the time I came along, convincing the city's Law Department even to bring such a case was essentially impossible, and eventually Mayor Giuliani issued a policy decision that, given the city's inability to sell off its existing inventory of bad housing and its poor record of managing that inventory, the city would no longer take title to any new residential rental properties, which completely took that option off the table for us.
The problem of obtaining code compliance from private landlords in NYC is not a new one - it goes back at least to the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in 1911. If the solution were simple enough to fit into a 1,500 character comment, believe me, someone would have come up with it by now.
23
@Ecce HomoNonsense, most of these landlords have enough money stashed away and if they pretend not to have it, they should loose the building.
4
I lived in a 24-floor building in south Williamsburg. Built 2009. Attracted by the area and the great views from the 14th floor and shared rooftop I moved in 2010 payed 2500 for a one bedroom. I moved out fall this year, the former view covered by nearby high rises - finally paying 3600...
The first owner tried at least to be accessible when maintenance was necessary. In 2013 the building got sold to a more or less anonymous company - rents immediately went up 25 percent and maintenance went down. This turned worse when it became obvious that the entire north east facing apartments where affected by multiple leaks with every north eastern rain event. Floors molded and got loose, ceiling wallpaper and painting got affected. Never ending and ineffective repairs with almost permanent scaffolding outside. You could mail ten times to ever-changing management people and got no response. Rent aberration was simply not accepted - the “automated” payment system simply ignored any request. Ironically long term tenants payed higher rents than new tenants when new apartment buildings put the market under pressure. The building manager has always tried his best but has been overwhelmed with work and has the order to reject maintenance. Truth about this building on Bedford Avenue is that just 10 years after its incredible poor construction - it is already fundamentally damaged, made with the cheapest possible materials (you rather would expect in a developing country).
27
I strongly, strongly disagree with the statement in this article declaring, as fact, that moving a unit to market is “exacerbating the housing crisis”. There is significant evidence from economists to the contrary, suggesting that restrictive housing policies that effectively remove units from the free market serve to raise rents in surrounding market rate units by reducing the supply, exacerbate this problem over many years through inability to construct new units to meet growing demand, and, as suggested by this article, lead to lower quality housing that is poorly maintained.
If anything, I would argue that removing that unit from rent stabilization / control is a small step towards resolving the housing crisis. The sooner a system is in place that allows the city’s housing supply to grow in line with the demand and need for that housing, the sooner you’ll find a remotely affordable New York.
22
@Andrew Really, perhaps like San Francisco, Seattle,Portland where there is no rent regulation and virtually all low and middle income people have been pushed out? Over one million apartments with several MILLION people are protected by rent regulation. Without it New York would literally become like some third world country were poor workers are kept in dorms or bused in with a several hours commute.
42
Do your research! All cities that have lost or given up on or voted out some form of rent control measure have seen an escalation of rents across the board and a decrease of affordable apartments. New York would face a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions if it ended rent control/stabilization. Some of these posts sound suspiciously like they come from the land lord lobby.
14
@Jessica
It’s perhaps surprising, but no less a progressive than this paper’s Paul Krugman disagrees with rent control as a way to contain housing costs. And he’s in the mainstream of economists on this topic. Most economists believe the rent control system ultimately squeezes the non rent controlled apartments higher. Google it.
3
The operating cost of a well maintained co-op out in Queens is around $1,000 per month for a two bedroom unit. Obviously, areas with higher real estate taxes are going to have a higher cost. Rents below that amount are not paying their way.
Much of the poor conditions I see on TV are due to failing drain pipes. My building from the 1950s also has this problem in the pipe going from the bathtub drain to the cast iron toilet stack pipe. Galvanized steel does not last forever. When the drains leak, the plaster deteriorates and creates favorable conditions for mold and roaches. Holes in the walls encourage rodents.
The US Supreme Court's most recent case declared Rent Control legal as the building owner knew what they were getting into when they purchased the building. This did not address the primary issue of regulating rent and whether this constituted a taking of property. With the changing court, an opposite decision may come about in the future.
17
Cast iron not galvanized steel. And, if it’s prewar, it’s still cast iron. Brass was used as water lines and is highly fragile at that age. To not replace these “mechanicals” is outrageous. The electrical too. So much illegal repair in NYC.
2
If they put a few of these landlords in jail, it might send a message that they are serious but then look at how bad NYCHA is so perhaps the first landlord to be jailed should be the mayor.
When the city gets a $900,000, how does it use it? Shouldn’t it be used to do the repairs?
32
We moved to the US a year ago...specifically to Manhattan. It makes us frustrated that we pay such high income tax including the surcharge for living in NYC while streets are filled with the homeless, the subway barely creaks along, and public agencies seem to neglect their basic responsibilities. Has much truly changed since Tammany Hall?
44
@Palczyma Tammany Hall was efficient; that's why it lasted so long.
1
I fail to see why the city allows this to continue. First, while it is a noble sentiment to say that the objective is correcting the problem, not punishing landlords, these are repeat offenders. They should be punished, and the problems fixed. Second, allowing landlords to ‘repair’ defects with cosmetic work is unbelievable! The city has a building code and inspectors; would it allow shoddy and ineffective work on a new building? Why not require specific work to address the underlying problem? Third, why should the city allow landlords to pay 10 cents on the dollar in fines, and why are fines allowed to be unpaid? Landlords have real property that can be seized to pay debts. Does the city also allow homeowners to continue to avoid back property taxes?
If the city collected 100% of the assessed fines, it could hire more inspectors to respond to complaints in a timely fashion. And if repairs were required to meet basic codes, not cosmetic fixes, the problems would recede in number. Some landlords might find that this was not the business for them — not an altogether bad result — and be replaced by responsible owners who provided livable units while earning a reasonable return.
There seems to be more to the story than presented here. How much do these slumlords pay political operatives as a fee for reduced oversight?
65
I'm not a New Yorker, but these sorts of shenanigans occur all over the world. Part of the problem is, as @May below says, is rent control, which acts as brake on investment. But aside from that, a major problem is the lack of accountability; if the miscreants were to spend time locked up rather than pay those ridiculously-low fines, my sense is there would be far fewer of these problems.
40
“The structure is flawed.”
Well, there's a simple solution: make landlord malfeasance a criminal offense. What do you say "Empty-suit Andy"? You used to be Secretary of HUD, so you should be intimately familiar with these problems. Oh, the slumlords are some of your biggest campaign contributors?
Question for the New York Bar: why does Jason Green still have a license to practice law?
79
@george eliot Cuomo was never the HUD Secretary, just a regional head.
2
@george eliot
The famous Leona Hemsley once said "only little people pay taxes".
The same goes for landlords - "only small landlords get fined or receive warnings".
2
@Jake
Nice try, Jake.
https://archives.hud.gov/pastsecretaries.cfm
1
The source of the evil isn’t landlords. It is the rent controlled housing system. How could you expect landlords to fix or upgrade their properties if rent cannot cover the cost?
27
Rent control/stabilization may be an issue in the overall housing market, but it isn't the only issue, and it's no excuse for landlords flagrantly violating the law on maintaining habitability of the units. It wasn't exactly a secret that a building had rent stabilized units when a landlord bought the property- they knew what they were buying.
54
I'm just going to take a wild stab at this and say "because it is their responsibility as the owners of the building to make the apartments they rent habitable?" Or perhaps sheer decency? I think that if landlords lie and abuse the system and their tenants repeatedly (as this article clearly demonstrates they do) they should be forced to switch apartments with their tenants. You would see things change very quickly then; instead of "walk a mile in their shoes" it would be "live a month in their apartment." You seem to think that because they are property owners, landlords have more rights than the people they are forcing to live under these inhumane conditions, which is only a step from thinking that people with property and money are more intrinsically worthy of care and respect than those without.
40
Nobody is forcing anybody to live in any conditions. The landlord is offering an apartment
2
The NYTimes has written some excellent stories recently on things not working in New York (housing, subway). However, it almost seems that it is a policy of the paper to prevent its reporters from asking the Mayor's office directly about them and thus hold de Blasio accountable. Only lower level officials are put on the spot. Why is that?
111