I would think every factor would count more highly than where a person's car is registered or garaged. I mean, who needs a car in Manhattan? I ditched my car the second I moved into the city. And if I had a car and a second home (maybe someday....), I would surely keep the car at that location rather than here, where garage spots are as expensive as residential rent anywhere else in the country!
4
Most people who have a car in Manhattan, use it to get to their weekend house. Why else would you have one?
2
My mother had a friend in a very similar situation, She presented her airline tickets to and from Florida with a notarized letter from her condo manager in Florida stating she was only there from December through March, and best of all, she found out from her auto insurer that since she wasn't using her car in Florida all year round she qualified for a "snow bird policy" which cut her premiums in half.
The landlord, Stuyvesant Town, known to be very aggressive, backed down and gave her her lease renewal.
The landlord, Stuyvesant Town, known to be very aggressive, backed down and gave her her lease renewal.
2
"Tales of the rent-stabilized tenant who owns a second home in some far-flung locale like Florida is the stuff of urban legend."
Among my UWS acquaintances it's more fact than fiction. Every single person I know who lives in a regulated space has property upstate or investment property in shell companies. Most of this property is within commuting distance of NYC, the rest in sunnier climes. All of them have more bedrooms than they need and will only move if they get a buyout from the landlord.
Rent control is the third rail of NYC politics as these same recipients are also vocal voters and political donors. The system is rigged against anyone outside the system trying to get in.
Among my UWS acquaintances it's more fact than fiction. Every single person I know who lives in a regulated space has property upstate or investment property in shell companies. Most of this property is within commuting distance of NYC, the rest in sunnier climes. All of them have more bedrooms than they need and will only move if they get a buyout from the landlord.
Rent control is the third rail of NYC politics as these same recipients are also vocal voters and political donors. The system is rigged against anyone outside the system trying to get in.
19
The greed shown by rent control/stabilized tenants knows no bounds. A few years ago a NY Times story reported about a TV Producer's Uncle who was in his 90s and lived in a beautiful rent-stabilized apartment overlooking Central Park. The uncle most likely was on Medicaid since he was receiving 24 X 7 Nursing coverage. The article ended with the lament that the Uncle was too frail to vacation in the Hamptons as he had done for most of his life. It seems that for this uncle living on the public dole is a great retirement plan.
6
Since the landlord is the one who gets the tax breaks, how are the tenants living on the dole????
3
It is unethical that a person with enough money to own and travel to and from a condo in Florida where they stay the winter months (that would be 3 months at least) and several other weeks a year where they also garage a car they own feels entitled to subsidization my me and other New Yorkers. Illegal I do not know about. Immoral, unethical, illogical and maddening for sure.
36
Re primary residence and rent eviction
whether your NYC apt is your primary residence turns on a number of factors, as mentioned, number of days per year is major, 365/2 =183, so live there 184
where you pay taxes, you may have dual incomes and dual tax returns, but only one tax return is for primary residence, federal tax return address, absentee voting
where you vote
-
so start with the facts, which is your primary residence, on the florida coop/ condo did you ever describe that, for say a mortgage application, as primary
you cannot ' cure' by an action eg selling the florida property
so start with the facts,which is your primary residence
all this can be quite nasty and detailed, where do you bank, utility bills show occupancy or non-occupancy
neighbors testimony not so much many NYers are hermits and anti-social
whether your NYC apt is your primary residence turns on a number of factors, as mentioned, number of days per year is major, 365/2 =183, so live there 184
where you pay taxes, you may have dual incomes and dual tax returns, but only one tax return is for primary residence, federal tax return address, absentee voting
where you vote
-
so start with the facts, which is your primary residence, on the florida coop/ condo did you ever describe that, for say a mortgage application, as primary
you cannot ' cure' by an action eg selling the florida property
so start with the facts,which is your primary residence
all this can be quite nasty and detailed, where do you bank, utility bills show occupancy or non-occupancy
neighbors testimony not so much many NYers are hermits and anti-social
3
Another question to be answered is whether the tenant is claiming homestead exemption on his Florida real estate, thereby claiming to Florida that it is his primary residence.
1
Regarding the snowbird, I sincerely hope for your sake you're not currently receiving a homestead exemption in Florida, because if you are, you're violating state law and are subject to back taxes and interest on those back taxes. In order to receive a homestead exemption in this state, you're required to have a Florida DL or Florida ID identifying your residence as your primary residence, a motorized vehicle registered in this state and/or be registered to vote here. Each property appraiser's office has the equivalent of a homestead compliance department, and they routinely conduct compliance audits to ensure that residents are, in fact, qualified to receive those exemptions. Just a word of warning here for my New York friends.
19
to maintain stabilized apt you must reside in the apt a certain # of days a year (185?)
and file your taxes at that address and have ny state drivers license - not out of state.
and file your taxes at that address and have ny state drivers license - not out of state.
8
And you also have to be not claiming to be a resident at some other location.
1
I adore Manhattan but week after week I read this column and have come to the conclusion that even if I win the lottery I would never own real estate in NYC. It's insane. The rules, the exceptions, the cost, etc. - it's insane.
16
100% agree with Tracy. Truly insane there. I look forward to reading this column each week mostly to laugh at the real estate environment in New York City. Co-ops are the worst. I would never live there.
(Now I'll wait to read the expected replies from New Yorkers saying they would never want me there, LOL.)
(Now I'll wait to read the expected replies from New Yorkers saying they would never want me there, LOL.)
3
Rent controlled apartments and HUD paying people's rent is wrong, immoral, and evil.
The first letter proves my statement; this person is not poor and the other working taxpaying slobs in NYC are paying for his luxury of living in two places during the year.
Imagine how many people are paying 1. high rent 2. high taxes 3. high bridge tolls, subway fares, etc. as they toil away the cold grey days while subsidizing this lucky person.
The first letter proves my statement; this person is not poor and the other working taxpaying slobs in NYC are paying for his luxury of living in two places during the year.
Imagine how many people are paying 1. high rent 2. high taxes 3. high bridge tolls, subway fares, etc. as they toil away the cold grey days while subsidizing this lucky person.
40
a) This tenant's apartment is rent-stabilized, not rent-controlled;
b) NO, taxpayers do NOT pay for or subsidize rent-stabilized or rent-controlled tenants - and HUD has nothing to do with it;
c) Those of us who live in rent-regulated apartments work and pay taxes, too;
d) You don't have to be "poor" to have a rent-regulated apartment - as long as you make under $200,000 a year & your rent is under $2,500 a month;
e) You don't have to be "rich" to own a condo in Florida- far from it - especially if it was bought decades ago or is not in an expensive area;
f) Yes, you're only entitled to a rent-stabilized apartment if it's your primary residence. But that does not entitle your landlord to dictate how you live or whether you can travel, visit relatives, etc.
g) You're in San Francisco - this doesn't affect YOU
h) Even if you lived in NYC, rent regulations wouldn't affect you unless you own property with rent-regulated apartments - but of course, no one is forced to buy those properties
b) NO, taxpayers do NOT pay for or subsidize rent-stabilized or rent-controlled tenants - and HUD has nothing to do with it;
c) Those of us who live in rent-regulated apartments work and pay taxes, too;
d) You don't have to be "poor" to have a rent-regulated apartment - as long as you make under $200,000 a year & your rent is under $2,500 a month;
e) You don't have to be "rich" to own a condo in Florida- far from it - especially if it was bought decades ago or is not in an expensive area;
f) Yes, you're only entitled to a rent-stabilized apartment if it's your primary residence. But that does not entitle your landlord to dictate how you live or whether you can travel, visit relatives, etc.
g) You're in San Francisco - this doesn't affect YOU
h) Even if you lived in NYC, rent regulations wouldn't affect you unless you own property with rent-regulated apartments - but of course, no one is forced to buy those properties
17
Rent control and stabilization are not the same.
HUD is not paying or subsidizing his rent.
Without rent stabilization those "working taxpaying slobs" wouldn't be able to afford to live in any of the five boroughs.
HUD is not paying or subsidizing his rent.
Without rent stabilization those "working taxpaying slobs" wouldn't be able to afford to live in any of the five boroughs.
12
The writer is in a rent-stabilized apartment, not rent-controlled. Even if it was rent-controlled, the government isn't paying any of the rent.
13
You've got to love those co-op board shenanigans. Actually, if you're in the position of being one of the tenants, you probably REALLY have to, or else risk getting the 'undesirable tenant' treatment. And you wonder why so many former co-op residents are down here now, for keeps (as we're now nudged securely into the nation's Number Three spot for population)?
5
Re: Snowbird Renter
Why wasn't the obvious question asked?
Does the tenant file a NY Resident Tax Return?
Why wasn't the obvious question asked?
Does the tenant file a NY Resident Tax Return?
17
I see a variety of these "NY'r" license plates in LA with alarming frequency. Why do people from NY think they're special and feel the need to proclaim their origins. It doesn't provoke envy, quite the opposite actually.
8
They are like Athenians sent to live in exile or English sent to live in Australia. They miss living in a civilized city and want to hold onto their connection to it.
6
Board changes the rules in mid stream costing the shareholder thousands and maybe intereing with the sale. Tone deaf, insensitive...so what boards can do whatever they like.
Board president breaks the rules, enjoys a bit of insider trading and makes thousands... What will happen? Very likely nothing. Even if one could afford to sue he would probably get away with it.
Some savvy interested state representative or Semator should start taking notice of how coop boards are out of control because they are "above the law". If not de jure then de facto.
Board president breaks the rules, enjoys a bit of insider trading and makes thousands... What will happen? Very likely nothing. Even if one could afford to sue he would probably get away with it.
Some savvy interested state representative or Semator should start taking notice of how coop boards are out of control because they are "above the law". If not de jure then de facto.
11
Co-op president. In order for the co-op to have purchased one of the two apartments, there must have been some board action on the matter. The question arises as why they did not purchase both. If the president encouraged the board not buy both, he/she is guilty of a conflict of interest. A board member may not vote or participate in a discussion of a matter that benefits them personally more than any other stockholder. The board minutes might be a good place to start when looking into this.
I am aware that many converted co-op are stuck with provisions allowing subletting. However, having an entirely owner occupied property is a far better situation.
I am aware that many converted co-op are stuck with provisions allowing subletting. However, having an entirely owner occupied property is a far better situation.
4
Considering that rent-stabilization is meant to help those live in NYC for things like jobs and such, and this person is wealthy enough to own a retirement property, I would label them a mooch.
34
You don't have to be wealthy to own a "retirement property" or vacation home - especially if it's a modest condo or cottage bought decades ago for less than the price of an average new car.
If the tenant in this article is paying the rent on time, lives in the apartment as the primary residence, & pays NY State & City income taxes - which btw, would be proof of legal residence - then he or she is definitely not a "mooch."
If the tenant in this article is paying the rent on time, lives in the apartment as the primary residence, & pays NY State & City income taxes - which btw, would be proof of legal residence - then he or she is definitely not a "mooch."
18
doy1: '...You don't have to be wealthy to own a "retirement property" or vacation home...'
People who have subsidized to live in the city for decades have no idea of what constitutes 'wealthy' for most people.
Here is it: If you live in NYC and can afford a car and a second home, you are much wealthier than everyone except the 1%.
Why, because you are in the 1% thanks to the subsidy.
Get it?
People who have subsidized to live in the city for decades have no idea of what constitutes 'wealthy' for most people.
Here is it: If you live in NYC and can afford a car and a second home, you are much wealthier than everyone except the 1%.
Why, because you are in the 1% thanks to the subsidy.
Get it?
7
Why should the taxpayers of New York City subsidize the discounted rent of somebody who lives a significant amount of time in Florida?
That is essentially what happens. The below-market rent means the landlord makes no profit, which means the city receives no taxes - the city and state create tax-free subsidy to the tenant who then goes to a state with very low taxes.
The value of the landlord's property is held down - which further costs the city and state taxes in the form of capital gains.
This is how you wind up with people who are perfectly capable of paying taxes - but who game the system.
The idea of rent control was to protect vulnerable people from being thrown out on the street when property values rose. But it has become a weird form of tax-dodging...and quite appealing to people who go to low tax states like Florida part time.
That is essentially what happens. The below-market rent means the landlord makes no profit, which means the city receives no taxes - the city and state create tax-free subsidy to the tenant who then goes to a state with very low taxes.
The value of the landlord's property is held down - which further costs the city and state taxes in the form of capital gains.
This is how you wind up with people who are perfectly capable of paying taxes - but who game the system.
The idea of rent control was to protect vulnerable people from being thrown out on the street when property values rose. But it has become a weird form of tax-dodging...and quite appealing to people who go to low tax states like Florida part time.
73
I assume from what is in the article that this guy pays New York City and New York State income tax. If he doesn't, then he will have a hard time claiming to be a resident.
So if he is thrown out, and moves to Florida, the city and state will lose the income tax he pays. As for the property tax, as far as I know the landlord has to pay tax on the building whether he makes or loses money.
So if he is thrown out, and moves to Florida, the city and state will lose the income tax he pays. As for the property tax, as far as I know the landlord has to pay tax on the building whether he makes or loses money.
5
Brooklyn Traveler - The Taxpayers of New York are not subsidizing the discount rent, the landlord is. He receives no payment from the government to cover the difference between the stabilized rent and market.
11
Read the article more carefully. It states that one must remain a citizen of NYC to keep a rent stabilized apartment here (not rent CONTROL, which is a different status) which also means they must pay city and state taxes here. It is individuals who own condos and coops in NY, but pay taxes elsewhere, who are being subsidized by the rest of us.
16
In
4
how is this coop president allowed to sublet the coop he bought from a shareholders foreclosure?
The apartment is supposed ro be occupied by a shareholder. It looks like this board really bypassed all the proprietary rules to let the president buy an apartment as a rental unit. By doing so he/she lowers the desirability/sale price of the building since the ratio of unsold shares is now lower. Coops should be 100% owner occupied if they are more than 20 years, If the Sponsor still owns shares, and there are a lot of rentals, actions should be initiated by housing rights groups, that the conversion was a means to escape rent stabilization.
There are plenty of apartments that were converted to coops to circumvent rent stabilization. There are plenty of apartments where the initial offering plan buyers were fraudulent.