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.
Truly disgusting that these tenants received millions of dollars after probably benefiting from below-market rent for years. NYC's crazy rent regulations have essentially granted property rights to stabilized tenants. The system should be abolished.
Too bad you decided not to read what the case was about and what the payout was for. The building in question was not a stabilized building and the tenants were not stabilized tenants. The developer chose to pay them to vacate because they are in a hurry to proceed with their development plans and didn't want to deal with litigation.
The developer is F'ing Tishman Speyer. They know exactly what they are doing and will not suffer in the least.You are just jealous.
Too bad you decided not to read what the case was about and what the payout was for. The building in question was not a stabilized building and the tenants were not stabilized tenants. The developer chose to pay them to vacate because they are in a hurry to proceed with their development plans and didn't want to deal with litigation.
The developer is F'ing Tishman Speyer. They know exactly what they are doing and will not suffer in the least.You are just jealous.
See where the confusion came and perhaps title of thread should be amended.
"In the litigation that led to the $25 million payout from Tishman Speyer, Mr. Rozenholc represented two tenants in a building on the corner of West 35th Street and 10th Avenue that was too small to qualify for rent stabilization—a designation that makes it difficult to evict. But he argued that an obscure law required that the building be treated in tandem with its nearly identical neighbor, which would push both buildings into rent stabilization. The approach eventually failed, but the message was clear: Mr. Rozenholc would be as creative as he had to be to continue the fight."
So in other words the attorney failed to get the tenant's building declared RS for purposes of this litigation but Tishman knew he would just keep at it like a dog and his bone. So they forked over 25 million to make Mr. Rozenholc and his clients go away.
I did get the details of the case wrong. Nonetheless, the lawyer used the rent stabilization laws as a threat and delay tactic to extract money on the part of these tenants.
Also, we all know that there have been many cases in the past of stabilized tenants receiving huge payouts. The article cites one such case, the Mayflower Hotel tenant who received $17 million and a $1-per-month luxury apartment for life. That tenant was also a client of the lawyer Mr Rozenholc.
As another poster pointed out, renters are exercising ownership rights. It's even worse in this case because they're not even RS apartments. This just goes to show how insane tenant-landlord laws are in NYC.
This is why rents are so high in NYC. Do rich foreigners contribute to the rents? Yes they do but so do ******* NY'ers who profit off of the RS/RC system in NYC for no other reason than being alive in a particular apartment. Just like the ******* in another thread in an RC apt in the E Village just salivating over his future buyout.
Things like this just get calculated into the cost of housing for market rate tenants. Why should market rate tenants have to pay for these *******s?
Let's say the city gave 50k/year to those born here for no other reason than being born in the city. Those who weren't born here wouldn't get that 50k/year. Prices would generally rise for things because of all this extra $ around and those not born here would suffer. Would this make any sense?
Last edited by wawaweewa; 10-05-2015 at 09:24 PM..
Truly disgusting that these tenants received millions of dollars after probably benefiting from below-market rent for years. NYC's crazy rent regulations have essentially granted property rights to stabilized tenants. The system should be abolished.
The apartments have a value, and their is a value to them leaving the apartment. I don't see anything wrong with them getting paid.
If the law says "If you rent a car, you are entitled to be able to lease it forever" then yes, you have a salable right. But the law does NOT say that about cars, only apartments.
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.
