The new rent laws are anti-business and anti-landlord in step with socialist democrats. As there will be no incentive for landlords to invest and modernize their buildings, they will fall apart and no one will want to purchase them. It is only a matter of time.
2
@Jan the incentive is the law that says that buildings have to be kept in a livable condition. Because of the new buildings longtime residents wont be pushed out when these buildings are "invested in and modernized"
Rent stabilization without oversight of landlord
Registrations and the inaccuracies, the city proactively and randomly auditing the buildings, tax breaks, etc is a tiresome burden for most of the tenants clinging to their tenements.
1
My building, like many others, is a co-op where the sponsor still owns several apartments, 30 years after the building went co-op. Do the recently enacted rent laws make it more likely that the sponsor will sell
a) rent controlled or stabilized units, if vacated
b) market rate rental units, when the lease expires?
@Sandwich
The new rent laws likely won't effect his decision to sell.
If anything, he'll get less for the regulated units now. Most
likely he'll hold on and wait for the tide to change. Only
over leveraged investors would sell into this horrible market.
Having a rent regulated apartment isn't enough of a windfall for you? You want a payout as well? Most of us are just grateful to have affordable housing. Period.
65
One thing that all have overlooked are the unintended and poorly anticipated consequences of the recent protenant regulation....work among renovations tradespeople has fallen dramatically and swiftly and will not be replaced in the near term. All the laborers who did those renovations are no longer being hired for apt renovations....so there’s a whole economic ecosystem that was impacted by this legislation. When you shut out all market participants from the regulation discussion (as seems to have been the case), you find many unintended repercussions. And in many of those instances, the economic safety net simply won’t be there.
10
@Urbanb, landlords are passing this cost off to tenants already. It actually works to their advantage. They pay for labor and the tenant pays for materials through a limited time rent increase. This is what I just did to finally get my living room floor replaced ..which under the previous rules would have permanently increased my rent.
2
@Sarid 18 The Rent Stabilization laws are incredibly inequitable and inefficient in handing out affordable housing. The law also incentivizes owners to not maintain their properties. The other odd consequence was to create these incredible payouts to some lucky tenants. The letter writer could be interpreted as just trying to figure out what his rights are, on the other hand, he may be considered greedy for asking far more than the non-market rate rent the law was intended to give him.
1
I've owned rental apartments in San Francisco, and I would say that tenants approach landlords requesting cash to move out! So how about publishing something about this?
9
@PD My landlord approached me to move out of my rent controlled Oakland apartment because I had been there long enough to be paying a third of what he was getting for the other apartments in the building. And while he paid mid 5 figures to get me out he'll get it back in 2 years.
9
I find the idea that someone who pays (in his words) a "ridiculously low rent" could EVER get a payout buying the place he/she rents. the goal of rent stabilization was to help the lower income and elderly--- not be a cash bonanza. I am not pro-landlord at all, but this kind of letter makes me think there should be no rent stabilization at all. The abuse is absurd.
94
What a queer thought..........Where a tenet can cash in on their rent controlled status......................
38
Only in NY. Some of the more famous tenants in rent stabilized apartments: Ed Koch (even though he lived at Gracie Mansion); Mia Farrow; Nora Ephron; David Paterson; Charlie Rangel (who scored 4 of them!) Cyndi Lauper. People like to promulgate the myth that rent control and rent stabilization is a way for deserving "working people" to be able to live in the city. Nope...it's luck, being in the right place at the right time, and entitlement. Need has nothing to do with it.
59
@Torioski I lived happily in a rent stabilized apartment for a decade before buying a modest co-op. Dozens of my friends live in rent-stabilized apartments still. These places start at $1,500 for a studio in my area. Rent stabilization is in fact a way for non-millionaires to survive in this city, your anecdotal evidence aside. May I suggest that if the return isn't to landlords taste, they don't invest in rent-stabilized apartment buildings ... nor take advantage of the generous tax breaks that accompany rent-stabilized properties
46
@Torioski
We all know that is not true. The overwhelming majority of rent stabilized tenants are not wealthy freeloaders who hit a type of housing lottery. Another lame, dishonest claim made by the real estate industry in this city.
37
Buildings with rent stabilized units do not receive any additional or specific tax breaks above and beyond any other building.
7
I've been a landlord in NYC for nearly 25 years.
I've never once "pressured" a tenant to move.
For you to claim that "more often than not, tenants received paltry sums after months of pressure" is utter hogwash.
I suggest you poll NYC tenants. You'll find
that most have never been harassed by their landlords.
As with every business, landlords/owners prefer to get along and work positively with their clients/tenants.
My own personal experience is that buyouts were an absurd form of blackmail. Tenants who rented long ago for below market rents did not deserve tens of thousands of dollars to move out, and in an ironic way, I'm glad they won't be getting anymore paydays.
My 100 year old NYC apartments need total gut renovations. Showers don't belong it kitchens. Toilets don't belong in closets. If the rent laws aren't reversed, when my old rent stabilized tenants move out, I won't be renting out their apartments at all. I'll use them for storage.
It's not worth the time and difficulty of managing property to rent an apartment unless you're paid a reasonable amount to do it.
These new rent laws will reduce supply and jack up rents. They may help spur real estate development in New Jersey, but they're a nail in the coffin for those of us in NYC real estate who've been working hard for years to make it a better place to live.
77
@Tall Tree I knew a tenant who became six months behind on her rent, more or less, because she developed a gambling addiction. Landlord was working with her to pay "something" every month - she had lived there almost 20 years and had been a favorite of his before her disease - but eventually he evicted her, ostensibly because of the back rent. But really, it was because she tried to hold the trump card (no pun intended) against him. There was a bedbug problem in her building, and in her unit. She went to the Board of Health in her community about the bedbugs, hoping this would stave off his efforts to collect her rent. She did not, however, place her rent in escrow, and ultimately, even in her tenant-favored community, she was evicted for not following that procedure. She is now in her early 70s, couch-surfing, even on her pension.
14
@Tall Tree
Come on, I think this is nonsense. Most landlords costs to renovate apartments is relatively affordable and the longterm financial benefit would exceed just using apartments for storage. You are correct, showers don't belong in kitchens, but you shouldn't be able to profit by upgrading a unit to the standards of basic modern living. The fact that you haven't renovated units that have showers in the kitchen speaks volumes to the exact reason why the laws needed to be changed in the first place. Shame on you for allowing our rent regulated tenants to live under the same circumstances as tenants from the 1930's!
18
that's utter nonsense. It costs landlords the same to renovate as anyone else. Which is quite a lot.
Why should he bother renting if he's losing money?
8
It's ironic to see this topic today in the Ask REal Estate column --
Elsewhere in today's Times appears the following article:
Landlords Strike Back, Suing to Dismantle Rent-Regulation System
After new rent laws were passed in Albany, real estate groups filed a lawsuit arguing that rent regulations are unconstitutional.
July 16, 2019
Two real estate trade groups and seven landlords filed a federal lawsuit on Monday night aimed not just at opposing the new rent laws in New York City, but also at challenging the entire rent-regulation system, which dictates the rents of about 2.4 million tenants who live in nearly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments.
They are betting the new laws will bolster their claims that the rent-stabilization system...is unconstitutional and amounts to an unlawful taking of property.
The New York real estate industry, long one of the most dominant lobbies in Albany, suffered a crushing defeat last month when newly emboldened Democratic lawmakers passed landmark legislation to strengthen tenant protections.
[...]
Now landlords have taken to the courts to fight back.
The Rent Stabilization Association, a prominent landlord group which represents landlords, and the Community Housing Improvement Program, a trade association representing 4,000 building owners, filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/nyregion/ny-rent-regulation-lawsuit.html
12
@Howard G
The Chief magistrate of the Eastern District Court was born in Puerto Rico. Grew up in the Bronx and went to Bronx Science , Yale , and Columbia Law. Worked as a DA in the Bronx .
She ran against Elliot Spitzer for Attorney General. She lost and was appointed a judge by Giullani and later the first Hispanic female Federal Judge by George Bush.
1
This question shows why most of the country views rent control/stabilization with amusement (and I am a former New Yorker). The writer has an apartment at a very low rent (their words). There is no mention of her financial need for her apartment to be subsidized by taxpayers, only that she wants to cash in! Where is the means test so that poor or disabled can get such apartments?
58
That below market tenant is not being subsidized by taxpayers. The renter is being subsidized by the landlord and no one else. It is the landlord who needs to have other units that make a good profit to help offset the below market, and likely lower than cost of doing business, below market tenant.
16
@Amit K, the landlord receives pays less taxes because he/she receives less rental income. Less taxes collected = more of the tax burden falling on the rest of society.
18
@Ed
That's a great point and the NYC legislature seems
to care less that NYC will be losing out on what's
estimated to be 1.5B-2B per year in property
taxes alone due to the subsequent decline in property values, not to mention lost income taxes.
That money could have been used to house all the homeless in NYC. Seriously, it's an absurd loss of revenue that the city will not be able to make up.
The existing stabilized tenants were already protected. Stopping landlords from getting rent increases on vacant units took away all potential upside.
Why would anybody want to be in a difficult business like real estate management without
any way to increase revenue over time?
6
The "answer" would be more persuasive if not based solely on two landlord attorneys. I wonder if they're part of the new lawsuit to overturn the law?
The value of buy-outs may be lessened. But the correct answer is, it depends ... on your lease, your building, and your landlord. Has your landlord bought out other tenants? Is your building becoming more desirable? How much more rent could your landlord legally charge someone else? If you conclude the landlord would financially benefit, go ahead and ask if there's any interest. (But never forget that most landlords are fierce negotiators!) The worst that could happen is the landlord says, No.
5
Read the article again. The attorneys are correct on that given the new rent regulation regime it is no longer possible for a landlord to drastically bump up the rent. It is now capped at $80 a month no matter how much the renovations end up costing the landlord. So no landlord in their right mind is going to bother doing anything more than a patchwork job. And no landlord would ever offer a buy out if there is no incentive to get the rent up.
18
Many landlords are complaining but when they first bought their real estate they were aware that the property had one or a few rent stabilized units they tried through intimidation and a lack of services to force needy tenants out. Now all who got kicked out can start new cases.
7
@Ralph Petrillo
We've always had MCI's, IAI's, and Vacancy Increases.
The new laws totally changed the rules.
This is not a case of "You knew what you were getting when you bought."
8
@Tall Tree
Um that is patently false. I moved from one rent stabilized Apt to another in the same small building in 1995. There was NO vacancy increase at that time. The landlord was able to up the rent I believe 1/40th for each specifically approved improvement and that was it. JUST before the new rules went into effect the apartment next to mine became vacant, it had be been gutt renovated 3 years before, my landlords are honest but the gut renovated it AGAIN even though it needed nothing and between that and vacancy bonus they got it to $2775 just out of rent control and about 3 times my rent ( for 280 square foot apartment in 3rd floor walkup. Now I would not mind seeing some changes re increases for renovations but sadly many landlords especially large ones regularly abused this so not sure how to do it it fairly.
3
@Jessica
No, there always was a vacancy increase at some level, but the amount changed over time.
There were limits at certain times as to how often the vacancy increase could he charged, so it's possible you weren't charged one.
3
Stabilization is not sold off. Just because you might make a deal with a landlord to get "bought out" simply means the landlord was being an idiot. The status of the unit DID NOT CHANGE. Any new tenant of ANY apartment in NYC should immediately contact the city to determine the status of their unit. It is very likely it still is under stabilization and, as such, the rent would have to legally be adjusted according to the last legal rent charged. These laws are robust, avail yourself to them. Do NOT be intimidated.
13
@Matthew
Great response. For many landlords cheated and now they are about to get burnt badly.
7
@Ralph Petrillo
Most didn't "cheat." There have always been big damage awards. Most landlords spend huge amounts renovating and legally raised the rents.
The city benefited because property tax and income tax revenue from local real estate increased by billions a year.
Real estate taxes fund nearly half the city budget, I believe.
3
Things change for all and many
changes are out of one's control.
Deal with it.
1
Can you get a buyout?
Sorry, that ship has sailed.
21
@PM Gee, thanks. That's exactly what the article said.
12
Wow, and I thought landlords were greedy. Enjoy your low rent in the greatest city in the world.
62
@PrairieFlax Everyone is greedy, don't you know?
6
@PrairieFlax
A landlord that owns a building with stabilized leases knows exactly what they are legally required to do as landlords. None of this is new. The stabilization law are decades old.
Any tenant of a stabilized apartment applies to get a lease, meets the scutiny of the landlord and they both enter into a legal agreement called a lease. No one is getting away with anything. It is all above board. Both parties sign.
So "greedy" does not apply. "Stupid" applies to the landord if they think they are de-stabilizing a lease by paying off any current tenant to get them out. Or rather they are planning to engage in illegality. Either way, the legal rent that can be charged and the status of stabilization does not change. The landlord can do renovations and increase the rent legally within limits. That's all.
I know this is complex for someone living in Grand Island, NE, so leave it up to NYCers.
15
@Matthew Thanks for the adhominen attack! In fact, as a homeowner (and, indeed, a farm owner) I am VERY pro-tenant! Goes back to my grad school days in Boston, which, alas, thanks to real estate interests, no longer has rent control - neither does Brookline or Cambridge, and yet the entire Commonwealth was allowe3d to vote on the three communities. Enjoy the journey!
5