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 know about UHAB from trying to work with them in my community board. The people in the photo live in the buildings they are not gentrifiers, they are trying to keep from being gentrified out of their buildings. You don't have to be organized. UHAB will do all of that for you. UHAB has 30 years of experience. They more than likely created this press release. They helped to gentrify the LES starting 30 years ago. They are a major reason the LES is gentrified today. They are responsible for Harlem tenements going coop, and selling for such high prices.
UHAB scouts out buildings and tries to put buildings together to make one coop. They approach the tenants door to door. It sounds like a good deal because they don't tell them the truth about the rent increases or what will be their new maintenance charges. They don't tell them that if the apt is the older relatives, that they can still live there if they are on the lease after the person passes on, but that they won't own the apt shares, and will live there as a rent stabilized tenant, with the rent starting at the maintenance price. Excuse the run on sentence please.
UHAB is very organized and supposedly teaches the tenants to organize but they really call the shots. They approve the new people moving in, while letting the new coop owners interview them etc. But UHAB has the final word. Doing all of this over a 5 - 10 year period you have a whole new set of people living there. People of what ever race, with more money than the Black or White people living their now.
UHAB will manage things forever, supposedly for 50 years, but everytime they find a tax reduction they get to extend that monitoring for another 50 years.
They speed up the gentrification process. What would work it self out in 25-30 years will speed up to 5 - 7 from what I see on the community board.
The one woman said they offered her $125K to move into a smaller apartment and she refused. I don't know if I read that right..... they offered her $125K to give up her current apartment and to move into a smaller one in that building and she refused? Or was it that they offered her $125K to simply vacate the building?
Either way, she should have just taken the money and gotten out. They will eventually get her out, anyway, so take the money and run. They've already locked her out of her apartment, claiming they're doing repairs. I wonder if it's that they want her out of that apt and to stay in the one she's in? Whatever. She doesn't explain herself very well.
First of all $125k is not a lot of money if one has to pay market rate rents the rest of your life. It certainly wouldn't convince me to give up RS protections. Suppose if you are young and have a good job to take the money as a down payment on a home might be a good idea.
As for the balance of your post there is no "definite" to her being removed from the building. Long as she has a valid lease and continues paying rent that is what matters.
In situations like these landlords take advantage of low income and or ill advised tenants because they can. When persons are ignorant of their rights and or cannot afford time or money to battle an all lawyered up landlord, they end up on the curb.
Some of the young whites in that photo likely have better political and media connections, as well as better organizing skills than some of the poor Crown Heights residents.
At least they are working to help those people, unlike some of you here who just like to diss people. Don't hate on them unless you have better ideas to help out residents and communities.
Do you not find it a little funny or odd that they make up such a noticeable portion of that photo while in reality they make up such a small sliver of the pie chart of Crown Heights demographics?
Do you not find it a little funny or odd that they make up such a noticeable portion of that photo while in reality they make up such a small sliver of the pie chart of Crown Heights demographics?
No, not at all. The population that lives there is not known for this kind of organizing or for it getting it put on the web or in print. Like I said, if they were Brooklyn would be a different place.
And perhaps those people didn't want the rents to go UP. Again, I've never met anyone white who has orgasms when their rental goes up. So they decided to do community organizing with other residents of all backgrounds, as delaying or halting rent increases would benefit them all. I don't see why this is a difficult concept for people to grasp.
There does not have to be a fight between Black working class people and white recent college graduates. Yes, people from different races and economic backgrounds can get along.
We should all be worried that you have to buy a building twice! It's bad enough you have to buy a building outright at ridiculous prices, but then you have to "buy out" each unit too? Didn't I just buy this building??? The market in NYC is truly dysfunctional and sad, both for owners and renters.
We should all be worried that you have to buy a building twice! It's bad enough you have to buy a building outright at ridiculous prices, but then you have to "buy out" each unit too? Didn't I just buy this building??? The market in NYC is truly dysfunctional and sad, both for owners and renters.
No, it is not the same and happens on the commercial side as well.
Ever since there have been leases persons buying residential or commercial buildings have had to contend with current tenants. Those persons or businesses have legal rights that are not terminated just because the building was sold unless statue and or terms specifically state that can happen. Someone is buying up the Second Avenue between 80th and 81st Street and yes they paid commercial and residential tenants to surrender their leases. That is just the way it is, and that is all there is to it.
Empty buildings in prime areas or those that can be easily emptied (such as those having month to month tenants), always will cost more, much more than otherwise.
Why do tenants forget that they cannot fight for "their" place...it is not their place..they are just renters. The buildings are owned by the Landlord. Why is this so difficult to understand. However, I do believe housing is a right, BUT it should not be the burden of private landlords to provide that social good..it should be government. As such, landlords of privately owned buildings should have the right to do as they please, while government should be providing for those who cannot provide for themselves.
So what is the problem here?
The building is owned by the landlord but half of them are fast to collect rent,but not fast to do repairs when needed.When they do not do the needed repairs the government pays for the needed repairs and waits for the landlord to pay them.I pay 1,400 rent on time but when I cant flush the bowl I have to wait a week to have it fixed
I cannot speak for other landlords and their maintenance habits. The simple point is this: The reason why people have to buy buildings twice (once to actually buy the building, and another to each individual unit!) is because tenants have lifetime renewal rights...an absolutely absurd right that leads to the confiscation of private property. In effect, their lifetime lease right takes precedence over the actual owners right...and as a result, the owner must "buy" the unit from the tenant, assuming the tenant is even willing to move.
Completely outrageous and unacceptable, and renters should understand that as unacceptable also. This is far less of an issue in the commercial market because businesses do not have lifetime renewals, but fixed expiration dates which tenants and LLs can then choose to extend if both parties agree otherwise the LL can take back the space and do what they please with it. No such option exists in the residential market.
It goes something like this:
You: Buy a car
Me: I want to rent your car for 2 years. I will pay you XXX per month.
You: Ok here is a 2 year lease.
2 years later:
You: Ok the lease is up. I would like my car back.
Me: Nope, I am not giving it back. It is mine now until I feel like giving it back. I will keep paying the agreed to amount however per month.
You: I own the car, not you, it is a great car and I want it back. The lease was only for 2 years, not 10, not 20, not 100, just 2 years.
Me: Too bad. Stop harassing me or I will sue you (and win).
You: Well I am not paying to maintain this vehicle anymore!
Me: If you don't maintain it like you are supposed to, I will sue you (and win).
You: I'm screwed.
A reasonable person would understand why this is a problem, totally unacceptable, and the primary reason why LLs torch buildings, allow them to virtually collapse for lack of investment, harass tenants, and why the residential market is so dysfunctional and toxic. Until we have an actual lease termination, whether it is 2 years, 5 years, 25 years, whatever, in which a LL can then take back his property and do with it what he wants, the dysfunctional and destructive market will persist.
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.
