What monthly income did Ms. Valentine have?
With $285 rent, she didn’t have $ to pay $15 hr aide?
She was a retired executive secretary, she would be getting SS monthly income based on her earnings history & enrolled in Medicare. If she lost her saving by “bad investments”, she would have be impoverished enough to be eligible for community based Medicaid programs for in-home health services & that would provide in home aides paid by Medicaid; and be a MediCARE/ Medicaid dual for health care costs. NYC has good community based programs for duals & NYS does pooled income trusts so she could qualify for Medicaid benefits.
I’m delighted for Mrs De la O.
Just wondering why Ms Valentin did not utilize programs she likely would be eligible for. Did she gift or transfer $$$ so had Medicaid transfer penalty issues? Was she not a citizen? She went out, like the Opera; active in her church. Did she not have anyone to help her apply for things, be an advocate? A DPOA?
I’d so like to know more on her backstory
1
Too bad it wasn’t a Trump building.
5
Seems to me the woman was eyeing the cheap for a while hoping for the old lady to die. This is New York City, cheap rent is the holiest of holy grails! No doubt.
6
If NYC taxpayers want to subsidize rents for poorer residents. have a means test and then pass out checks! BUT don't make the process a lottery and put the burden on individual landlords.
15
This is an example of the extremes getting the ink and preferential treatment in NYC.
The problem today is greedy landlords charging insane rents in NYC. Circa 1970s it was the other way around with rent regs. strangling attempts by the mom and pop landlords to make a living resulting in abandoned housing.
This case harkens back to it. Any sane person would tell you a landlord cannot turn a profit with this rent.
The house is in great danger of being abandoned or ending up a welfare charge of NYC.
9
I was particularly surprise to read that there remain only 22,000 rent-controlled apartments left in the city.
Didn’t economists say that, as rent control diminished, apartment rents overall would come down?
6
It's been many years since I managed property in NY, but it seems that the landlord did not do the work. For rent controlled units, documents must be filed to prove expenses and fuel passalongs, capital improvements, etc. can supplement the rents to keep them competitive with stabilization. On the other hand, if there was no investment into the building/unit over time, that would explain the rent held at under $300 a month. But having met all of the criteria for succession, this woman certainly deserves to keep her home.
12
I have a neighbor who ended up with two houses on our block. Apparently she and her husband helped care for two widows, allowing them to age in place. The last one passing when my neighbor was in her late 70's. One of them had no immediate family, the other's family lived out of state and decided that the benefits of losing the house were more than covered over their mom having someone to watch over her until she passed in her own home.
2
Glad to hear she was successful. Kudos to her attorney for persevering.
19
The sappy author of this article, who delights in the unjustness of this decision, seems oblivious to its implications. Further, this article lacks balance.
Perhaps the property owner(as opposed to the feudal “landlord”) is a disabled widow who relies on the income of this property to survive. Is this a 200 unit complex, or a ten-unit walkup?
And exactly how does this windfall for this individual create an affordable housing market? Another unit has been frozen out of the market, gifted to a clever home-health aide, thereby decreasing supply in the face of rising demand.
Is this the best The New York Times has to offer?
25
@VFO
I agree that there should have been some discussion, some facts, some comment about the specific landlord (or as you say, "property owner") involved in this case. If he or she (or if it's an LLC or Corp) wants to decline to comment, fine. If so, the article should have at least said that the "Landlord declined to comment." Was the landlord given the opportunity to respond or comment? Was the attorney for the landlord asked to comment?
There should then have been some research about the property including, as you suggest, the size of the building (number of units), is it owned by an individual or a mega-developer, etc.
10
This is horribly unfair for the landlord, who is forced to give lifelong charity to consecutive tenants. Perhaps Ms. De La O will have a relative live with her, and the process will continue.
Meanwhile all the other tenants will pay higher rents than they should, as the building's costs must be covered. In NYC, those costs are high.
The biggest victims of this injustice are, of course, the many others who cannot find affordable housing in New York, because policies and rulings such as described here so limit the supply of housing in New York.
24
Once again the government over reaches and forces a private citizen to subsidize another, rent control regulations are an infringement on the property rights of private citizens forcing them to forgo their own well being in the form of rental compensation for the benefit of others
65
@EAH
Oh, I agree. It's well known that New York landlords are the poorest most beset upon creatures on the planet. They can barely make a living. They are always scrupulous, sparing no expense for the safety and benefit of their tenants, not to mention their comfort and convenience. Vermin and unsafe conditions are never, ever heard of in NYC apartments. They should be completely left alone ….
66
Sickening. Bad enough that rent control is basically government sanctioned stealing (let's see how happy anyone would be if the government forced them to work for pay that is 10-20% of its actual worth), and the theft can be handed down as an inheritance, now it gets extended to HHA?
This is outrageous, not to mention the door this will open to more elder abuse and theft by HHAs, which is already a thing.
Oh, and spare me the rich landlord/poor tenant sob story. The wealth of the victim does not make stealing from him/her ok.
48
There is a long line of cases in which courts voided the Wills of a deceased elderly person who left their estate to a caretaker because of the undue influence exercised by a caretaker over a totally dependent elderly person. This looks and smells a lot like one of those undue influence cases.
"Open minded judge" appears to be a euphemism for someone who seeks "justice" by taking the property of the wealthy because they can. Miss De La O is 62. If she lives as long as Ms. Valentin (93) that would be 31 years. Market rent is $1800, controlled is $283.35 ; 1800 - 283.35 = $1516.65 per month. That's $18,199.80 per year. Over 31 years that's $564,193.80. The Open Minded Judge took over half a million dollars from the landlord and gave it to the aide. How generous of him.
If New York wants to help the poor in a tight housing market, issue subsidies or vouchers. Don't confiscate from some and give it to lottery winners.
Rent control, a depression program, would not pass Due Process analysis in today's court. I hope the landlord decides to appeal. And I hope other landlords join in.
49
@Mel
And a hearty, "Bah! Humbug!" to you as well.
40
@Mel I agree, but that's the letter of the law and this was probably the perfect case for it. I don't think an appeal would be in their best interest.
Common sense to me would be to amend the inheritance law so that it's either income tested or has a graduated phase out over some reasonable time (5-7 years) or lifetime if > 65
3
@Mel :
Nope, rent control ain't a Depression Era program. Like many who expound on the subject you know little of it.
11
Why is it necessary to steal economic value from a landowner and give it to someone else? This is reprehensible. What if the government came to your house and said you need to rent a room to a homeless person because you are a landowner?
This is downright communist, yet people are applauding the decision.
25
@Luis THIS!!!
I simply cannot understand how people cannot grasp this core concept.
The whole entitlement class believes someone else should be paying their bills. Well in this case, the government is forcing one private individual, the landlord, to directly subsidize another individual, the tenant, all without any direct or indirect benefit.
19
Her lawyer, Mr. Duronville is only three years out of law school?!... WOW...cheers to him for being such a great lawyer already.
17
@Ronnie
Umm. The uber liberal judge decided the crazy verdict, not the laywer. The facts are the facts.
Anyway, it will be appealed and hopefully overturned.
Justice should prevail.
6
Various well meaning programs have been abused for decades. Rent-controlled apartments were sold by tenants who no longer wanted them as if they belonged to them. The term "key money" was common when I was growing up that allowed the tenant to profit on what has been heavily subsidized housing. Same is true for Michell-Lama Apartments. A resident who "bought" one of these desirable apartments for say $10,000 down can now sell it for over a Million dollars once the coop buys out of the program by paying off the mortgage; - a mortgage that was greatly discounted and subsidized by the government, and maintenance paid for by the government; a burden shared by others paying fair-market rents in lesser apartments.
Why is this allowed? The answer is simple. Many city politicians and well-connected types happen to reside in these Mitchell-Lama housing. An internal report found that nearly half of the staff of NYS DHCR, which overseas Mitchell Lama program lives in its housing.
14
Conspicuously absent from this article is any mention or comment from the specific landlord involved. Good journalism would at least have a statement, "The Landlord xxx was called for comment but he/she declined."
In the comments here, there seems to be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth from landlords who are not directly or indirectly involved in this matter. Okay, that's fine. But why nothing from the particular defendant-landlord in this particular case?
4
@Robert Plautz Given the judge's ruling, the landlord may be considering legal action. He will not and should not say a thing on the record.
8
From a fact sheet by the New York City Rent Guidelines Board - covering rent-stabilized and rent-controlled apartments in New York City --
#30 Succession Rights
"For rent stabilized and rent controlled apartments throughout New York State, a “family member” of the tenant may have the right to a rent stabilized renewal lease or protection from eviction in an apartment under rent control when the tenant dies or permanently leaves the apartment.
“Family member” is defined as either a spouse, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, grandson granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law or daughter-in-law of the tenant or permanent tenant.
The definition of “family member” also includes any other person(s) residing with the tenant or
permanent tenant in the housing accommodation as a primary resident, who can prove emotional and financial commitment and interdependence between such person(s) and the tenant."
https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2019/11/fact-sheet-30.pdf
4
Congratulations! You deserve it!!!!
8
@Genevieve Why? Because she "wants" to live in NYC without paying what it costs?
And why should that burden solely fall on the landlord? Why does she/he have to directly subsidize her rent as opposed to society as a whole? Do you house people in your home free of charge?
13
She gets to live there because it is the law. Just like the law protects you in your home. Don’t like it? Elect someone who is committed to change.
4
So actually law doesn't matter anymore?
More of the city passing it's requirements upon private enterprises.
7
@Nolaws Actually this is the law, it's just unconstitutional is all.
6
I'm a retired lawyer. I wonder how many associates a few years out of law school working at white-shoe firms knocking down in excess of $200,000.00 a year can call themselves and feel like a "lawyer" as much as Claunick Duronville, Esq. can?
Good work, counselor! Your reputation proceeds you. The next time you tell an adversary, "l'll see you in court," their knees should buckle.
33
The landlord had the opportunity to negotiate a new rent with Ms. De La O. Yes, she won a "lottery" so to speak BUT the landlord passed up the chance to negotiate a higher rent. I'm betting she would happily have accepted a $600 per month rent (with the apartment then reverting to rent stabilization). Lesson for landlords: Be careful about being greedy - it might bite you.
65
@historyprof
The landlord will appeal and win.
8
@historyprof You fundamentally misunderstand how this works. The landlord has no power to negotiate a higher reasonable rent with the tenant. The rent is set by Division of Housing and Community Renewal ( DHCR ). Meaning, even if landlord and tenant agreed on a rent of $600, that would not be allowed by law. The only remedy the landlord has to recover his own property is to offer money for the tenant to move out.
12
@B Correct about the guidelines but in this case, the Article states the Judge gave them an opportunity to negotiate a settlement. Fundamental understanding.
11
Finally... a judge with a heart, and some common sense. Ms. De La O is as much 'family', if not moreso, than many of our blood relatives.
Also, home health care aides work so, so hard, for so little money. They are not valued.
So... after all this woman's hard work, and the wonderful care and friendship she gave to her client, this is a very just reward.
84
@Tall Tree - Please tell us who else was it going to go to, exactly. The elderly lady was not married and had no children, and her nephew, who is nearly 70, lives in France. Would you have preferred the apartment went on the market and was rented out or sold for an astronomical amount while Ms. De La O ended up on the street? Would that have satisfied you? God forbid someone’s “stuff” - in this case, an apartment - ends up with someone who appears to have actually cared about her.
21
@Lindsay K The apartment belongs to the landlord. It was not the tenant's to give away and soon, I think the courts will decide it wasn't the state's either.
17
@B - Maybe. Or maybe, for once, an older person on what is probably some sort of fixed/limited/lower income will live in safety in a decent apartment that was once occupied by someone whom she cared about and cared for. So many of these comments are so miserly and miserable. What’s the matter with you people? Are you so awful that you have to tear down someone else’s good fortune and happiness? Good Lord.
26
Amazing story of two very fortunate women. I commend the judge's decision. Great quality care should be rewarded,especially
in today's dog eat dog world.
10
Where are some folks getting that this was a case of 'elder abuse' or 'taking advantage of older, rich people', and when (if you read the story), there were many indications their lives had become intertwined, with at least one long-term friend of the deceased even testifying on behalf of the health care aide??
8
@Lisa
Yeah, the article didn't state the age of the landlord, but if he or she is over 62, the verdict should be considered elder abuse.
5
$283 is way too low. That price should be reserved for the chronically homeless attempting to get on their feet.
12
You can bet the landlord et al. will spare no expense in getting the ruling overturned.
2
@Imperato
Hopefully. He does own the building after all.
Who pays the taxes? Who cleans the lobby? Why installs cameras to stop crime?
It sure ain't the tenant, buddy!
13
Mike Bloomberg succeeded in making New York City “a luxury brand.”
3
I've nothing against Mike Bloomberg, but my personal and professional experience with rent regulation in NYC and elsewhere tells me that if he'd taken on the enormous challenge of fixing NYC's ridiculously distorted housing market instead of, say, scolding people about how much soda they drink, I think that would have been a far better use of his political capital. And, it would make him a more viable candidate for president (in my mind, anyway).
4
How many landlords have inherited their buildings? Why should only the land-owning/wealthy benefit from inheritance? Some people are lucky enough to be born into families that own buildings - and you think the NYC & NYS governments aren't subsidizing them at all?
Some people are lucky enough to be born into families of people who have rent-controlled apartments.
And some people live their lives in such a way that they develop close bonds which lead to inheritances of great value, even from non-family members.
17
@AP
Buying a building means you own it.
Renting means you don't.
The landlord should appeal and win.
11
@AP The landlord or landlords family often invested their life savings to purchase these buildings. What did the tenant do? Show up one day and fill out a form? Please.
13
...also, the story clearly states "But Ms. Valentin soon ran out of money to pay Ms. De La O and two other attendants. Ms. Valentin had worked as an executive assistant at a bank but had lost much of her savings in bad investments.
Ms. De La O agreed to move in, working for free at times..."
Clearly Not a case of a home healthcare aide trying to 'take advantage' of anyone. Aides like her are worth their weight in gold, and they all need to be paid far, far more for doing work that so many Family Members aren't willing to do.
30
They aren’t related and she didn’t grow up in that apartment, why should the landlord have to continue subsidizing her?
I am no fan what so ever of landlords. I fall on the side of tenants 9 times out of 10. But come on, at a certain point landlords do actually have to make money off their properties.
Should we allow rampant out of control obscenely high rents to proliferate in NYC? No, of course not. There should be robust rent regulation. But should someone that isn’t related to the lease holder and didn’t even grow up in that apartment (the reason for being able to pass the rent control to an immediate relative) deserve to get such a deal? No. Let it become rent stabilized and add $500 per legal bedroom. That sounds fair to me.
16
@Biz Griz:
"They aren’t related and she didn’t grow up in that apartment, why should the landlord have to continue subsidizing her? "
Because the law is 2 years of co residency.
The law is no "grew up in".
20
Bravo Claunick Duronville, Esq. you are a gem. Wonderful, wonderful story.
55
The article portrays the relationship between the two women as rare. As a non Witness in a family of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can truthfully say this is NOT rare, but rather a testament to their dedication to one another.
15
@John as an ex-witness after 20 years of service i can say their relationship rare as most witness relationships are nothing more than skin deep. Also Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult that remind members at practically every meeting not to associate with "worldly people" or non-members.
Not trying to take away from this news that is probably most welcome to Ms. De La O. Congrats to her.
jwfacts.com
4
IN the healthcare world, we see an abundance of relatives clamour into end of life discussions for avaricious reasons. Many of these relatives clearly have not had a relationship with the patient for years, and if they had, the relationship is often fray.
Live in caregivers can play a significant role in the life of the elderly. In certain circumstances, the only care-giver the patient has had ensuring that the daily needs and 'extra-corporal' needs are met.
Of course, the unintended consequence of this court ruling is the insidious onset of caregivers gaming the system to land housing, perhaps even an organized front for self-gain. Managing the fallout from this legal ruling will be tricky. I am often confounded by the sharpness of legal rulings, but the scores of agencies which have to adjust their policies to manage the implications - finance, housing, tax, community, healthcare, banking, etc... often having no line of sight on the unintended consequences. Perhaps another court ruling has to be in place to manage those.
7
this is the central European model - congratulations EDLO
8
Isn't rent control inheritance why Monica had that nice two bedroom apartment on Friends?
16
I'd like to ask the landlords, 'If this doesn't meet the qualifications, what case would?'
10
@JB
That rent doesn't begin to cover the landlord's costs.
The landlord should appeal immediately.
He'll likely win.
6
People on this city will more readily talk freely of their sex life then how much rent they pay.
We have legal bullfighting in our city when tenants and landlords start screaming at each other every year or so when the rent stabilization guys meet to decide how much raise a tenant should pay or not.
Might we ever have a better way out of this ?
Might "affordable rent" ever disappear as an unusual designation vs what? unaffordable (luxury?) rentals.
3
$283 is ridiculously low. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad she got the apartment. She was entitled to under the law. But $283? No. Thats insane.
32
@anae
The judge effectively decided to take private property from a private citizen and give it to somebody else.
This kind of thing happens in Venezuela. Not the US!
9
If it makes taxpayers / renters of free market apartments feel any better, the home health aide program (the Long Term Care program) - which was likely Ms De La O’s former employer (I seriously doubt Valentin could afford to employ her directly) - is exactly what torpedoed NY state Medicaid costs, and now has city and state fighting over who pays the bill. I hope readers enjoyed this story- they’re financing it with city/state taxes and inflated housing costs.
There is no free lunch (or apartment or home healthcare) for Ms De La O or Valentin. Someone is always paying.
19
Good! I want my tax dollars to help the needy not bailout billionaires!
64
@sg rent stabilization/ control program is not means tested. At issue with skyrocketing Medicaid costs is whether the city is properly means testing for the state program (it is not).
11
@Sg Here is a poor billionaire desperately in need of the Rent Stabilized apartment he had on Central Park South! Described in these very pages.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/nyregion/david-koch-nyc.html
2
One less 62-year-old homeless woman. Can we all at least agree that's a good thing? Can we also agree that the rent seems unreasonably low?
Ms. Valentin, apparently of limited means, did not have a family support system and was fortunate enough to find an aide willing to move in with her and eventually befriend her to such a degree. Considering the crisis we are experiencing nationally re the care of aging of baby boomers both Ms Valentin and Ms De La O were amazingly fortunate to have found each other.
It sounds as though the landlord was remiss in making increases where allowed. I wonder at the condition of the apartment. Clearly there needs to be some sort of realistic adjustment of the system that does not cater to greed yet sets rent at a level that allows people of limited means to be able to survive in the city while allowing buildings to be properly maintained.
The problem of homelessness and the soaring cost of housing is nationwide. A lot of handwringing and hostility transpires over the issue, yet nothing sensible seems to be done to solve it. I just thank my lucky stars my own fear of eventual homelessness motivated me to scrape together $5K to buy the least expensive home I could afford in a state where prices were still affordable 40 years ago, but not everyone's life's circumstances allowed that.
Here's hoping a sensible solution can be found so that we don't become a banana republic in every aspect imaginable. We already have the wanna be dictator.
43
@BeePal
Even in Allentown, PA, apartments don't rent for $260/mo.
It's absurd that a private citizen can be forced to subsidize another with zero reimbursement by the government.
7
Kindness and friendship do not exist in the hope of reward. I am glad that this time, they did.
26
Rent controlled apartments, especially ones "handed down" from one generation to the next, are, quite simply, a government taking of the owner's property. The difference between market rent and controlled rent can be astronomical. While affordable housing is, indeed, an issue, why should only property owners bear the cost of providing what is essentially subsidized housing, and not the government (i.e., all taxpayers)?
34
Because many of those property owners are fully able to do so. If not, then that’s another issue .
3
@fact or friction
They are still collecting rent - just not as much as they think they'd like to collect. I fail to see how this consists of 'subsidizing housing." I'd have liked to collect $1,800 a month for the house I rented out....but I settled at 1,200 because I needed a good tenant. Does this mean I've now "subsidized" my tenant? Somehow I think that wouldn't stand in court.
19
@fact or friction - The landlord bought the building with full knowledge of the rent controlled units and I'm quite sure they make a good profit. Now- if they bought the building at an inflated price with loans with the plan to get rid of the rent conrolled tenants, then they took the speculative risk - that's the cost of doing business.
39
I am glad to hear for once of justice done in a housing matter. This woman, Elinora, would be homeless otherwise, most likely. She worked without pay when Marguarite employed her ran out of money, she became her family. Marguarite would likely have ended up on on medicaid in a nursing home. So ultimately- this arrangement saves the public money.
The landlord either inherited or bought the building knowing of the rent-controlled units so that's the breaks- you take chances when you are in business.
49
@lkos
It's not over. The landlord will appeal and likely win.
The judge should use his own money and buy this woman an apartment, not give her somebody else's property.
7
May I be truly very happy for her without thinking this was a good idea?
There must be some in-between position that is fairer to everyone than rent control or cost hyper-inflation.
16
The article is framed in a misleading way. They were living together as roommates, and that's an entirely different kind of succession. So, will this help me take possession of my aunt's Mitchell-Lama co-op?
5
I believe Mitchell-Lama regulations require annual proof of income and residency (by showing NYS tax returns). At least two consecutive years of proof are required. If you can satisfy that, you might be one of the lucky ones.
5
@Maria Two consecutive years of residency are still required. Proof of income was abolished with the new rent laws that went into effect last year.
5
@Plank That's the entitlement spirit!
1
Just curious, does this now mean that she can hand down this apartment to her family? ie the son that lives around the corner?
14
@Mozzy : Yes! But....only if they move in with her, stay for at least 2 years, and "inherit" the apartment at the existing rent upon her death. As the article mentions, there are 22,000 rent controlled apartments in NYC. I would imagine that the majority have plans of family succession in place! When I lived in NYC until the mid-70s, that was a common ploy!
17
No. Her son does not reside in the apartment. It is not his home so he has no rights to the apartment.
3
@Molly : Apparently he lives around the corner from his mother AND if he moves in with her and remains for at least 2 years, he would become the de facto renter after her death at her current rent. Seems unfair, but that's the deal under NYC law.
8
When you have a rent controlled apartment, everyone else in your building is paying part of your rent. That’s something I would never be OK with personally.
41
@Pete Mitchell No. Everyone else in the building is paying "market" price - the highest price that the landlord can charge. And, let's not forget that the landlord usually has tax breaks for the stabilized/controlled apartments. Landlords would not own these buildings if they did not profit at the end of the day.
110
@Pete Mitchell
Ahhh, THAT'S the American spirit.
6
@newyorker
Wrong. Many of the other units are rent stabilized, but at higher rents. All the other tenants are subsidizing this woman.
Plus the city is losing out on thousands of dollars a year in property and income taxes.
The should give her a rent voucher instead of taking private propery off the market potentially forever.
3
A rare glimmer of good news about the needy citizen’s of this city being able to hold onto their homestead.
36
Good for her! It’s encouraging to see that human bonds still hold some sway in this crazy, greedy world.
May she long continue!
53
A rare moment of true justice. Our society could learn a lot from this judge, who recognized that families take many forms. The more we understand the myriad ways that important bonds are formed, the more we will understand blood to be only one among many. Queer families, intergenerational families, religious families, school families, happenstance families -- all deserve recognition!
168
@b How is it true justice to have one individual, the owner, directly subsidize another for decades on end? The burden of public benefits should be borne by society as a whole, not on the backs of particular individuals.
Keep in mind that rent control was coercively applied in the post war years to address a 'housing emergency'. It is now almost 75 years since the end of the war yet this policy persists. The property rights of the owner has been abrogated that long. That also is an injustice.
48
@B And we aren't facing a housing emergency today? It's pretty incredible to think of landlord--real estate speculators--as victims. Those who provide essential services to the private sector--housing, medicine, education--should be subject to regulation, and are not entitled to operate under some mythical idea of free enterprise. Are we afraid that the landlord would become so destitute that he or she would qualify for...reduced housing?
36
@b It is only reasonable, and most economists would agree, that if you cap the price of something, that less of it would be made, and that whatever is made, would be traded on black markets. Lo and behold that is exactly what is happening here. While the beneficiary of this case maybe sympathetic, lets be clear that she got this benefit, over other possibly even more sympathetics cases, because she knew somebody. The word for that is nepotism.
8
The caregiver met the legal standard for inheritance of the lease; therefore, the judge made the correct ruling, period. I'm sure the landlord will survive somehow.
185
@Andrea Hawley
While I completely agree, it does seem to me that inheritance of a lease is wrong in principle.
Yes, those who started out in a rent-controlled apartment should be able to stay under rent-control (tho $200/month seems over-controlled) for as long as they live there.
But the notion that this right shouldn't terminate at death is plain silly - the entire justification for the controlled rent dies with the tenant, yet the right can then be perversely transferred to others, with no means-test applicable.
There must be some better way to keep some system of rent controls.
35
I may be an outlier on this one but I think the landlord should have gotten his apartment back.
78
@A.E. I totally agree.
9
Very surprised by the tone of so many replies. Why so much sorrow and compassion for the landlord and so little for a kind working class woman who helped care for an elderly, lonely financially insecure dying woman? Landlords (or groups of investors more likely) surely are not hurting. The decline in the number of rent controlled and subsidized apartments tells you this. Capitalism is very much alive and well but it is nice to see there is some room for compassion and caring. Let's all work on it!
243
You said it all. I don’t know why I was in shocked at the landlord advocates here but I was. I wonder if these supporters of rich landlord rights expect or hope that when they’re vulnerable a nice human or two comes to their aid?
55
@KM why do you assume that every landlord is drich? Perhaps a little old lady owns the building and she cant afford to subsidize the tenant. Why not have the city pay for their short fall. Taxes, fuel etc.
there are always two sides to every story.
17
@KM : Rent control at 1960s prices? 75 YEARS after it was instituted to deal with WW2 shortages?
That's madness. Every rent controlled apartment privileges ONE person and takes a unit out of the market for GENERATIONS. This woman clearly plans to take in her family and give THEM privileges, so this apartment NEVER comes back on the market.
"Fair" might have been letting her stay at the subsidized rate for 2 more years (she was only there a total of 4 years and most of that, not living on the premises). More than that is highway robbery.
The NYC courts are insane.
31
I am happy that Ms. De La O has a good home that she can afford. And our rent control laws, set up to hold back rents from rising naturally, are part of the affordable home problem. A home that costs $283-a-month in a city like New York is basically being subsidized by the owner.
If she leaves that unit the landlord will jack the price up as ridiculously high as it is ridiculously low right now. It's a bi-polar economy that completely cuts out anyone in the middle being able to afford anything. The system needs to take into account the rising cost of housing when adjusting the amount a landlord can raise the rent on existing tenants, otherwise we have a wildly fluctuating market, and an adversarial relationship between landlords. who are motivated to push their tenants out, and tenants who need services from the landlord. It also leaves small investors totally shut out of the market because they can't afford to purchase a unit for millions of dollars just receive a couple hundred each month in rent. Under this system we may as well hand the units over to the city to run as project housing.
As I said, I don't see Ms. De La O as the problem, she did win the lottery, but the system has to change.
50
@Sean Karlin
yeah, yeah, blah blah blah
I live in Williamsburg for 30+ years.. in that time I have thought about moving from my place to another apartment. I did end up staying put.
First time I looked, in the early 90s, the going rate for a 1 bedroom apt. was around $450-$550 per month.
I did another search a few years later in the mid 90s.. the same apt, with no upgrades, now was listed at $800-$950.
And now, after rezoning and hyper gentrification -- one bedroom apartments in Williamsburg from the same housing stock now runs $1800-$3000 or even more.
Explain that.
20
@Concerned Citizen
Everybody loses out. The city needs the tax revenue it would have collected had the apartment become market rate.
This woman should have applied for Section 8 vouchers like everybody else.
2
@Concerned Citizen She did her job for no pay the last few years....are you ignoring that?
5
I was on board with this heartwarming story until I read that the caregiver, who’s supposed to be a professional, co-mingled her assets with the client’s. It seems to me there are some legal issues here that are separate from the rent-controlled apartment.
29
@LIChef that's sort of the point, that the relationship was NOT one best described by non-familial terms like "client" or "employee".
22
@LIChef It also notes she was given power of attorney. But it's also clear, the only significant asset she had was the apartment. Hopefully Ms. De La O lives to a ripe old age herself.
36
@LIChef i think you missed the part where she moved in and continued to care for the dying woman in exchange for a place to sleep. It seems to me at that point the two women had mutually decided to evolve their relationship from professional to personal.
24
While the concept of inheriting a leased apartment seems foreign anywhere else, the specific situation seems to fit the unique rules of that bizarro world. I doubt many caregivers are in the same situation. All it would take is one relative to assume the role for awhile, maybe attracted by the lease, and it’s over. The woman had no relatives and this person became one.
17
@Michael Blazin In Egypt, there are actually 'frozen rents' left over from the time of Nasser, when nationalization and socialism was in vogue. Fifty years after his death, and many regimes later, there are still many Egyptian families enjoying rent controlled apartments in prime locations costing them a mere $20 a month (thanks to massive inflation over the decades) - a neighbor on the other side of the wall could be paying $1500 for the same thing.
10
Cry me a river - of crocodile tears - for the landlord. When has any NYC landlord made a rent-regulated apartment available to "someone who needs it" when an existing tenant died? With only 22,000 rent-controlled apartments left in the city the landlords can well afford to sustain them from all the market-rate rents they collect in the rest of the building. And don't delude yourself into thinking that the market-rate rents would go down if only they weren't subsidizing one low-rent tenant in the building. The author already noted the landlord's intention to raise the rent to market rate.
133
@Steve725
We all lose. The city needs to increased tax revenue (property and income). It also needs the renovation of old apartments which provides work for it's citizens.
This is a socialist joke. The owner should immediately appeal and hopefully win.
So funny how so many commenters are happy to give away stuff that belongs to other people!
9
Rent controlled apts should be gov’t owned, or subsidized to at least the lowest market average/rate for the particular neighborhood. So in this case, renter pays $250 and gov’t $1450. Landlords shouldn’t be footing the bill for a community-wide issue.
56
@SomethingElse
I completely agree with this, the Landlord should be compensated for the lost rent. I owned an older multi family in a state that got millions from paint companies because of their part in selling lead paint. As a landlord I was compelled to mitigate the lead paint hazard despite the fact that I never applied a drop of lead paint myself. That cost me a lot of time and money but ai received none of the settlement funds or any type of tax credit. Although I certainly think providing safe housing is an essential public good, just as providing affordable housing options is, the burden should not fall entirely on the property owner.
If the cost of rent control was not being completely borne by landlords, I have a feeling that mechanisms would exist to root out the ‘legacy’ units going to people who don’t need assistance but inherited the deal.
22
@SomethingElse That's basically socialism for the rich. Fred Trump (Trump's father), made much of his fortune building rent controlled buildings in NYC.
25
@Nick
No, it's why the US has a functioning economy and why Egypt doesn't.
1
Why something does not belong to you can be left to a relative or in this case a close friend?
When the rich get a free ride on the backs of the poor (I.e. estate taxes) everyone is rightly up in arms. This is exactly the same. Someone is getting a free ride on the backs of the landlord and the taxpayer. She is getting a rent controlled apartment that should if anything, remain in the system and go to another senior. Not an able bodied individual.
34
@Anonymous Ms. De La O is 62. By granting her the apartment it did go to another senior.
36
@Anonymous Most likely, the 'Landlord' inherited the building from their family, ie. old money. Who deserves the money more?
20
Estate taxes are on the backs of the poor ? I’m very familiar w this subject given 90yr old parents recently passing - they already paid federal/state/local taxes on whatever they accumulated during their lifetime - and then at death the government wants more money ? (I’m well aware of the recent changes & exclusions, so save me that lecture). At this point, with never-ending wars and an out of control military industrial complex - I wouldn’t give this country a dime if I could get away with it. Doesn’t matter the political party - they are all corrupt.
5
Sweet story! She stepped in as if she was a relative, so in my eyes has earned succession of the apartment
91
@Yo Mamma
I would say those years of working for nothing pretty much cemented that theirs was a familial relationship.
7
I never understood why rent-controlled apartments were able to be handed down to relatives. When I was in my early 20s in NYC, everyone knew at least one young professional bilking the system, their family having inherited grandma or great aunt's rent controlled apartment. These were typically people on the fast track to earn six figures if they weren't already, and the fact that a dirt cheap apartment had been in their family for ages was just another way in which the system was built to give favor to those who don't really need the help at all. At this point, how many rent controlled apartments are actually lived-in by low income tenants? It's a well known secret in NYC that families hang onto these units for generations.
108
@M
The rent control program was established during the first third of the 20th century, so if "everyone knew ... their family having inherited grandma or great aunt's rent controlled apartment," this is simply not true. "Everyone knew" is not a valid argument.
As the article noted, there were multiple requirements for inheritance. The apartment cannot simply be left to a relative in a will.
Lastly, if the landlord meets several requirements, rent can be raised by 7.5% every year. The low price for this apartment simply represents a failure by the landlord to apply for increases they are allowed under rent control.
35
@M : I believe that everybody in NYC knows that rent-controlled units are held exclusively by well to do or upper-middle class (if not actually rich!) people. Virtually none are held by the poor or working class.
Also, another poster mentioned 7.5% annual increases. I'll bet this place started out costing $70 a month and the $283 IS that rent, after generations of 7.5% increases.
13
@M
Sorry about your great aunt's comment
Aunt's and Uncle's and cousins etc are not eligible to become successors to a rent controlled apartment.
5
Wonderful story of friendship, but great friendship does not mean the property rights of someone else should be abrogated. This landlord has been losing money on taxes, heating and water on this apartment for decades. And they can't sell the place; who would buy it?
No matter how sympathetic this health-aide-turned-friend may be, it's a separate injustice that this will continue for decades more.
74
@SS
Errr , many people would buy a building with rent controlled tenants residing and just wait for these elderly tenants to die, This instance of a caregiver as legally entitled to a Rent controlled apartment. is a fluke ,however in the day, Gay couples who could not marry ,had to prove similar
proof as this caregiver to stay in a rent controlled apartment .
6
@Carlyle T. : In the 70s, when I lived in NYC, there was a wonderful pre-war rent controlled apartment building on the SE corner of E.22nd Street and Second Ave which the owners were converting to condos or co-ops, and they had offered a deal where you could buy an apartment currently occupied by a tenant, and it became yours upon the owners demise. Guess what happened? The grandchildren moved in with the grandparents and took over the apartments. I'll bet that those grandchildren's children now occupy those apartments, and they'll hand them down....ad infinitum!
9