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.
- The Apartment is the Property of the Owner, thus:
- He can use the apartment for himself or rent it
- If he chooses to rent it out, he cannot discriminate.
If the current tenant pays the rent and complies with laws, there is no fair or just reason to evict the tenant in favor of another unless the owner needs the apartment for himself.
No, I think what I said went over YOUR head. Even IF the tenant pays his rent, the Landlord is NOT and should NOT be obligated to renew the tenant's lease. Not renewing a lease is NOT discrimination. I have no idea where you get that information from.
As a matter of fact, the landlord does NOT and should NOT give any reason as to why he chose NOT to renew the tenant's lease. That is the Landlord's prerogative.
No, I think what I said went over YOUR head. Even IF the tenant pays his rent, the Landlord is NOT and should NOT be obligated to renew the tenant's lease. Not renewing a lease is NOT discrimination. I have no idea where you get that information from.
As a matter of fact, the landlord does NOT and should NOT give any reason as to why he chose NOT to renew the tenant's lease. That is the Landlord's prerogative.
Clearly above your head
If you're going to continue renting the apartment, as an owner it would be unethical to refuse to renew a tenant's lease because you wanted a different tenant in there. If the money is the same and the tenant is complying with laws, then it's blatant discrimination or potential vehicle for extortion
Ethics and law as you know are two different things. For unregulated apartments a landlord is free to not renew a lease for any reason (unless a clause expressly guarantees it).
If you're going to continue renting the apartment, as an owner it would be unethical to refuse to renew a tenant's lease because you wanted a different tenant in there. If the money is the same and the tenant is complying with laws, then it's blatant discrimination or potential vehicle for extortion
Ethics and law as you know are two different things. For unregulated apartments a landlord is free to not renew a lease for any reason (unless a clause expressly guarantees it).
Exactly, being ethical has nothing to do with the law. Because if you want to talk about being ethical, then the WHOLE rent stabilization system is UNETHICAL to LLs where the RS allows the tenant to strip away the LL's property rights. If you want to talk unethical, then that right there Mr. Jones is UNETHICAL!
FYI my previous statement was referring to deregulated apartments, not rent stabilized apartments.
With rent stabilized tenants I know a LL is forced to renew a tenant's lease against the LL's will. SMH.
With a deregulated tenant a LL is NOT obligated to renew a tenant's lease even if the tenant has always paid their rent. The LL need NOT give a reason as to why he chooses NOT to renew the tenant's lease. And that' the way it should be across the board.
Oh you poor penniless landlords endlessly whining about the rent stabilization LAW. If you don't like the laws of the City and State then MOVE to a place that has laws you like, or CHANGE the law. Until then, for god's sake stop whining.
As a minimum, you should stop your theiving criminality by trying to steal from each of your tenants as soon as you smell their money. Too bad the City does not have the means or enough people turning down your bribes to throw most of you in jail for felony fraud.
You know, the large real estate entities are far more honorable in dealihng with the laws. It is the slimy little miser who is looking to squeeze any penny who is the problem. The landlord in Les Miserable best illustrates this in "Master of the House."
Quote:
Charge 'em for the lice, extra for the mice
Two percent for looking in
the mirror twice
Here a little slice, there a little cut
Three percent
for sleeping with the window shut
When it comes to fixing prices
There
are a lot of tricks I knows
How it all increases, all them bits and
pieces
Jesus! It's amazing how it grows!
Oh you poor penniless landlords endlessly whining about the rent stabilization LAW. If you don't like the laws of the City and State then MOVE to a place that has laws you like, or CHANGE the law. Until then, for god's sake stop whining.
As a minimum, you should stop your theiving criminality by trying to steal from each of your tenants as soon as you smell their money. Too bad the City does not have the means or enough people turning down your bribes to throw most of you in jail for felony fraud.
You know, the large real estate entities are far more honorable in dealihng with the laws. It is the slimy little miser who is looking to squeeze any penny who is the problem. The landlord in Les Miserable best illustrates this in "Master of the House."
Yes of coarse... all LLs are greedy and ruthless...lol. Yet I'm the one that gets bashed on this forum for maling statements that are general and stereotypical. Goes to show the type of hypocrites on this board.
I have looked around on this forum for a while and want to say that I enjoy both of your postings. Sort of like "fair and balanced".
Then I got hit in the teeth recently and posted here as well as on a couple of other threads where I could post with confidence about what I was saying.
Thank you both for posting on this thread. This Rent Stabilization thing is an interesting animal, to say the least. I feel good about my situation but hate to think of doing battle as a non native NY'er. Sort of like not having the home court advantage.
I have looked around on this forum for a while and want to say that I enjoy both of your postings. Sort of like "fair and balanced".
Then I got hit in the teeth recently and posted here as well as on a couple of other threads where I could post with confidence about what I was saying.
Thank you both for posting on this thread. This Rent Stabilization thing is an interesting animal, to say the least. I feel good about my situation but hate to think of doing battle as a non native NY'er. Sort of like not having the home court advantage.
But hey, it worked out ok for the Pacers.
Thanks,
TK
FYI OP, here is a solution to end Rent Stabilization OP. A very fair and win-win solution for all parties.
The common sense solution to the Rent stabilization issues is for the city to subsidize the below market rents payers that way the Landlord gets his entitled market rents to pay his market rate expenses, and the tenant continues to live in the apartment. A win-win for all. One happy family.
But of course the tenant advocates don't like this idea because they would be forced to disclose their income tax to verify their income to see if they qualify to be subsidized. And as many of you know, there are a lot of high income earners, especially in Manhattan who would never qualify to be subsidized yet want to hold on to their below market apartments, hence why they would put up a fight if such proposal were to be introduced. Knowing these facts, now you can see who the REAL crooks are.
FYI OP, here is a solution to end Rent Stabilization OP. A very fair and win-win solution for all parties.
The common sense solution to the Rent stabilization issues is for the city to subsidize the below market rents payers that way the Landlord gets his entitled market rents to pay his market rate expenses, and the tenant continues to live in the apartment. A win-win for all. One happy family.
But of course the tenant advocates don't like this idea because they would be forced to disclose their income tax to verify their income to see if they qualify to be subsidized. And as many of you know, there are a lot of high income earners, especially in Manhattan who would never qualify to be subsidized yet want to hold on to their below market apartments, hence why they would put up a fight if such proposal were to be introduced. Knowing these facts, now you can see who the REAL crooks are.
There's no way my tax dollars should go towards subsidizing Manhattan apartments.
That being said, I think you're on to something. In order to qualify for rent stabilized rates, a tenant should have to show that they are low income and are deserving of subsidy. You have plenty of 6 figure earners taking advantage of these apartments
There's no way my tax dollars should go towards subsidizing Manhattan apartments.
That being said, I think you're on to something. In order to qualify for rent stabilized rates, a tenant should have to show that they are low income and are deserving of subsidy. You have plenty of 6 figure earners taking advantage of these apartments
So you don't want your tax dollars to keep poor people with a roof over their heads? Isn't that the right thing to do? I mean doesn't your tax dollars go to feed poor people (food stamps)? Same difference.
As it is right now, Rent Stabilization is NOT an income based law. Meaning you can be a millionaire and have a cheap, below market rents apartment. This happens quite often in Manhattan. So I say, make Rent Stabilization income based. Afterall, isn't the idea of Rent Stabilization to provide affordable housing for low income people who really need it and not millionaires? So why not force all Rent Stabilized tenants to disclose their income tax to help determine if they qualify for a cheap apartment or not?
The solution is quite simple but the tenant advocates would do everything in their power to not allow income tax disclosures because they know the truth what will be uncovered. And as long as the tenant advocates refuse to act in good faith in finding a win-win solution, everyone else in a RS apartment will suffer, while the lucky long time RS tenants continue to get away from murder.
The common sense solution to the Rent stabilization issues is for the city to
subsidize the below market rents payers that way the Landlord gets his entitled
market rents to pay his market rate expenses, and the tenant continues to live
in the apartment. A win-win for all. One happy family.
A version is already in place; it's called Section 8, except it is the federal government who gives money to the overcharging slumlord (see, they suck money from multiple sources.). It's not very popular with multimillionaires who refuse to pay taxes for social programs and thus it has been strangled almost to extinction.
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.
