Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I venture that many here in the SF Bay Area would love to have New York style rent control... seems there are always new ballot measures inching this direction.
if the tenants are below market odds are they are there a long time so if they are over 62 OR IN THE BUILDING MORE THAN 20 YEARS,all bets are off the table . unless the building was going to be demolished or gutted out you are stuck with them .
So let's demolish a couple of units to make a big one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
As such, if you live in a large building with an elevator, an "owner-use" eviction probably isn't going to hold up in court, as the building is likely owned by an LLC or large corporation.
So sell it...and when the time comes, sell it back. Obviously there are tax implications to be dealt with, but having a couple of individuals work with their respective LLC's could make for a good swap to get the exchange in place. In the meantime individually, buy insurance. Admittedly I know nothing on Co-Ops in the city.
Which is greater....the contingency liability or eliminating a 50% gap between carrying value and FMV with it free and clear?
I hate the concept that one could pay hard money to obtain real estate and have the rights to that property be taken from me. If the city wanted to buy land rights to build a road, they would have to pay you via public domain. If the city wants to steal your land rights by capping the rents to a level where you lose money....they basically just stole your property.
I'm sure it's legally impossible or people would have gone around it already. Disgusting law though. It practically promotes intimidation and homicide.
you can't demolish some units , the entire building has to be demolished ...
it really is what it is and the whole rent stabilized thing has been refined more and more over the decades to become more bullet-proof from the owners . you don't want to try these schemes , they all have been tried before .
today there are a few programs like j51 and 421a which are popular .
you can bring apartments to market at full price , get very very nice tax abatement's and super finance deals by just agreeing to be stabilized on some affordable housing allocated apartments and follow the boards guidelines . they are very popular despite the constraints .
I venture that many here in the SF Bay Area would love to have New York style rent control... seems there are always new ballot measures inching this direction.
We've got some real beauties this year. Statewide one for rent controls set in local jurisdictions. I'm scared of that one.
Culturally, there's a state one to change our time zone....
But the one that to me is the craziest thing ever....a proposition to make billions in loans to homeless with mental problems to buy homes, but only those that are currently homeless. The program cost will reduce the normal operating funds of mental health...because crazy homeless need homes, not meds, apparently.
I mean, what's that loan app going to read?
1. Are you homeless?
2. Are you crazy AF?
3. No, I mean really crazy...obviously you've already decided to live on the street. So, how many people do you speak with that only you can see?
4. What's your party affiliation?
5. Will you get each of those people you see to vote at least once?
Congrats, here's a million dollar home. Please pay on time each month.
you can't demolish some units , the entire building has to be demolished ...
it really is what it is and the whole rent stabilized thing has been refined more and more over the decades to become more bullet-proof from the owners . you don't want to try these schemes , they all have been tried before .
today there are a few programs like j51 and 421a which are popular .
you can bring apartments to market at full price , get very very nice tax abatement's and super finance deals by just agreeing to be stabilized on some affordable housing allocated apartments and follow the boards guidelines . they are very popular despite the constraints .
If it's an elected issue, as in, not thrown on an owner without their consent...my story changes 100%. Then an owner sold their future rent rights for whatever the government assistance was offered and that's the deal that must be upheld. The remainder of a deal becomes like an Asset Retirement Obligation.
In the country we have permanently protected wetlands that people occasionally try and overturn, but the "owners" get no sympathy because they were basically paid their land value when they elected to move their land into the program.
Nice looking place. I don't have much of a benchmark to know what market is for similars, but if you'll be a lifer in NYC, it still probably makes sense to get in and get locked. 30 years from now when everyone's paying $15K a month and each unit costs $6K a month to maintain, you get to be the problem
Nice looking place. I don't have much of a benchmark to know what market is for similars, but if you'll be a lifer in NYC, it still probably makes sense to get in and get locked. 30 years from now when everyone's paying $15K a month and each unit costs $6K a month to maintain, you get to be the problem
the rent increases the last decade have been real world . it was decades ago that the rents were manipulated and held artificially low to win votes .
nyc has 50% of all rentals stabilized and there are more renters than owners in the city
If it's an elected issue, as in, not thrown on an owner without their consent...my story changes 100%. Then an owner sold their future rent rights for whatever the government assistance was offered and that's the deal that must be upheld. The remainder of a deal becomes like an Asset Retirement Obligation.
In the country we have permanently protected wetlands that people occasionally try and overturn, but the "owners" get no sympathy because they were basically paid their land value when they elected to move their land into the program.
originally it was a choice to be stabilized . but if you refused your tax status would be changed to rediculous rates so building owners agreed to join. remember they were told they would always get fair rents , it was only to prevent gouging .
well they all got duped , so the co-op craze in the 1980's was their light at the end of the tunnel
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
