Everybody Out? - NYTimes

[Cassandra]

This is just disgusting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/realestate/26cov.html?

"Within weeks, the Economakises began notifying tenants that their leases would not be renewed, even though the apartments were rent stabilized, because the couple planned to live in the building with their infant son and take over all 11,600 square feet.

The notices said the new owners planned to renovate the building, which has a total of 60 rooms, to create five bedrooms, six bathrooms, a den, a playroom, a gym, a library, a study area, a dining room, a kitchen and a living room.
<snip>
But Andrew Scherer, the author of "Residential Landlord-Tenant Law in New York" (West Group, 2005), said: "The size of the space that somebody claims they intend to live in must pass what lawyers call the 'giggle test' - the notion that the claim is believable and will not cause a judge to start to giggle. The idea that someone would take 15 units with 60 rooms as a primary residence is absurd." "

This may not happen but the thought that someone could be so greedy is just vile. I know they have the right (probably) but just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[Lilyhoney]

1. I would'nt want to have to promise to clean 11,600sf

I could live very comfortably in that much space. But I just simply could not keep it clean. I don't know what the laws are but if I want to tell people to leave my property, I should have the right to. That is how I feel about that.

[Cassandra]

2. New York City still has very strict rental laws...

although they've taken some hits in the last few years. Some of these people have lived in that building for decades, through times when the neighborhood was very dangerous. Now that the neighborhood is safer, someone comes along and tells them to clear out. Wherever in the city they move, their rents will multiply maybe 3-5X or more, which is hard to deal with. Housing court will take a very close look at this one since it displaces so many tenants in the sort of building that isn't often converted for private use.

[Lilyhoney]

3. I understand.

I am empathetic to the longstanding residents. But sometimes it is time to move on and let somebody else have a go at it. Eventhough we may not think that is fair. My landlord died a couple of years ago. He loved my husband and I, and would never ask us to leave if he were still alive. The two children of his are fighting over the property. The one will tear this house down in a heartbeat to put up an apartment building to make more money off of the property. We won't want to go. It will break our hearts to see this house torn down. We moved into this house 5 and 1/2 yers ago. We were married shortly after. We have two cats burried in the yard. We put money, blood, sweat and tears into our home here. But it is not ours. We rent.

[Cassandra]

7. As you can see near the end of the article...

the housing court judges look very carefully at these arrangements to make sure that the space is really going to be used for family. Many landlords just want an excuse to get rid of tenants with low, legal rents. It's one thing to disrupt one family for another. It's something else to displace fifteen units (with singles, couples and families) for one small family. Even if it goes through, I'm not sure why they think they need the whole building. They could just as easily take half or a quarter and still have plenty of space.

[Princess Turandot]

4. They are being weakened all of the time..

in the place where I live, once rent-stabilized vacant apartments are being warehoused until the owner, a major insurance company, can do renovations on the apartments to bring the rents over $2,000 a month, which removes them from the stabilization program if unoccupied. The management company tried a ploy last year to get rid of existing tenants by offering a bounty to any worker who outed a previously ignored cat in residence and as a result, caused a tenant to move. (Pets are not allowed under the leases, but for 50+ years, the clause has only been enforced against dogs.) Fortunately, someone sent a copy of the memo, written by an attorney I believe, to the NY Post. It was one of those moments when tabloids have a value. By the time they rescinded the 'offer' the CEO of MeowMix who lives in NYC, was offering a higher bounty for the workers to 'clam-up'. There actually is a law in NYC which prevents a landlord in many cases from using a pet to evict a tenant or even the pet, but not everyone knows abt it. I'm convinced that this was aimed at widowed seniors, who live by themselves now in 2 bedroom apartments. Many of them have cats & probably would have given them up since I doubt they had an option to move that easily.

Several years ago, Joe Bruno, the Republican leader of the Senate tried to prevent re-passage of the rent stabilization laws, even though most the affected apartments are in the NYC area and not in his upstate district. The legislation eventually passed, but not before NYC'ers were picketing Bruno's home and I believe sending him death threats. In the last go-round, the monthly rent to de-stabilize an apartment was not increased, nor was the income level that could cause an apartment to become de-stabilized as well. On my last lease, I had a 12.5% rent increase because Bloomberg increased property taxes to cover the city budget gap. Subsequently, he rolled back a good portion of the tax increases but not my rent!

There is a firm belief somewhere that only millionaires should live in Manhattan, I guess.

[Cassandra]

5. I'm in my apartment since 1979

so I keep a sharp eye on rental law in NYC. My landlord is pretty good at making repairs but every time we owe some small amount of money for expenses above the rent (CO2 detectors) he sends a snarling invoice threatening legal action if it isn't paid immediately (even though some of those fees aren't due immediately). It's just so unnecessary. Sometimes I'm tempted to let a complaint go to housing court so the judge can throw something at him but I can't afford to tempt fate.

[Sugarbleus]

6. throwing tenants out of a "rental" property that ISN'T a HOUSE

is sheer vile ... Unless of course the tenants are troublesome.

This happened to us in Dec. 1999. The silicon valley boom caused a housing shortage as people flooded into the sector for work. The cost of rentals and homes for sale went through the roof. Scarcity of housing was the issue of the day.

Soooooo, people were forced to move way way way out of town and commute every day for hours to their jobs. Finally they came over the hill to our beach side town and started buying up property hand over fist.

This whole migration thing happened under Clinton in the 90's. Boy you could just see the dollar signs in property owner's eyes.

We lived in a DUPLEX--traditionally intended for renting. We lived there for seven years. Painted, carpeted, landscaped etc..The kind landlady who rented to us died so her children decided to "cash in". They sold the duplex but we thought it was just a change of hands and we were okay. To our extreme and sad surprise, the new owners decided they wanted to buy the unit and live in BOTH SIDES. Shit, if I had known that was their agenda, I wouldn't have taken any measures in cleaning up the property to impress them. THEN, they not only wanted to live in it, they started laying on the "pressure" for us to move early. We still had a one year lease. They offered all sorts of perks if we'd go.

When we looked around, there was exactly ZERO options in where we'd go. TWENTY people were lined up outside of this dump we live in now looking for a rental--there were next to zero places left to rent! There were whole families w/children, students, and working people. I talked to others who were experiencing the same fate. Everyone was in distress and quite pissed off. We looked in four counties for suitable digs. We ended up coming back to this dump at exorbitant rates...or go unhoused. Did I mention that we are an aging disabled household?! It's not like we can just pick up our heirlooms and wheelchairs and buzz off to some far off place.

We had made friends in our old neighborhood..we were rooted there and satisfied. I went into a deep deep funk of depression when we were forced, like so much cattle, out of "our home". My duplex neighbor and I had just previously been talking about buying the unit ourselves but the laws hadn't "moved over" yet to allow that sort of live-in/co-ownership in that area. Wow, did that law change in a hurry. :grr:

If a property is FULL of crack addicts and ner-do-wells, I can understand wanting to reclaim the property for better tenants. But to just throw regular people out of traditional rental property so owners themselves can either live in it or tear it down for expensive condos is UNCONSCIONABLE... I mean, people who know they'll never be able to buy property deliberately rent in apts or duplexes and the like; assuming they can stay as long as they need to if they are good tenants.

On some level, some of these actions, I believe, are based in classism.