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.
Let's not go overboard about it being unfair that landlords can't charge market-rate rents. Rent stabilization is factored into the building's purchase price. These owners paid less for these buildings than they would if the buildings were non-regulated.
There you go again...
You do realize there are scores if not hundreds of RS units that are in buildings owned by the same company or whatever for decades?
The large real estate (mostly Jewish) families alone own hundreds of buildings in Manhattan and elsewhere with RS or RC tenants. Finding out who owns what is often difficult because each building is likely under its own LLC. Biggest Landlords in NYC | Related Companies | Blackstone
Under such circumstances there isn't a "purchase price" or whatever to be factored into anything.
An mci shouldn't be given for a burner. I don't know how restrictive the rules are but I would think a burner should not qualify.
Better a burner than an entire new boiler. Again most of you just don't want to know do you?
Purpose behind creation of MCI scheme was to give landlords of rent controlled properties incentive to do major (and expensive) capital improvements even when the rent rolls didn't support the work. Reason why the rent rolls didn't support the work is because rent control laws controlled what the LL could charge. It bears reminding of just what much of the rental housing stock in places like South Bronx, East Village, Lower East Side and elsewhere looked like in the 1970's until really rather recently in places. Landlords couldn't cover major work out of the rent so they let buildings go to pieces.
Am beginning to think many would prefer living in dirty nasty hovel than spend a little more in rent for a better building.
Better a burner than an entire new boiler. Again most of you just don't want to know do you?
In most cases changing a burner is like replacing the tires on a car (unless its some kind of situation where it is a new technology that is superior, but keep in mind most residential nyc buildings still use old heating tech). I don't feel that falls in line with the spirit of the whole MCI rent increase. It is supposed to be for major capital improvements on the property not basic maintenance that should have been done years ago. Just my interpretation but perhaps the courts view it differently...
You do realize there are scores if not hundreds of RS units that are in buildings owned by the same company or whatever for decades?
The large real estate (mostly Jewish) families alone own hundreds of buildings in Manhattan and elsewhere with RS or RC tenants. Finding out who owns what is often difficult because each building is likely under its own LLC. Biggest Landlords in NYC | Related Companies | Blackstone
Under such circumstances there isn't a "purchase price" or whatever to be factored into anything.
I don't really know what you mean by "there you go again". I made a couple of posts so far where I agree with the concept of MCI increases for rent-stabilized buildings. I'm in favor of them. I think people arguing that landlords should only be able to pass these MCIs along to tenants at cost are being ridiculous.
I just don't like how some people will go to the other extreme in these discussions. Let's be more balanced here. There are also plenty of buildings that have been sold over the past decades. So the new buyers knew what they were getting into and the purchase prices take into account the rent-stabilized rolls. These buyers understood the rent-stabilized rules and were making assumptions on how quickly they could turn over these apartments and raise rents or how quickly they can deregulate these buildings.
Sure, there are also landlords who have owned buildings for even longer and have been hurt by rent-stabilization. They had the choice to sell these buildings at some point, possibly at a loss, but instead have held onto them because they could afford to wait until the market improves and/or the rent regulations are changed in their favor. These are business decisions. Nothing wrong with that. And with the market upturn, they are now reaping the benefits. Good for them.
I think it's ridiculous to read the "woe is me" viewpoints. Both from the landlord side and the tenant side.
In most cases changing a burner is like replacing the tires on a car (unless its some kind of situation where it is a new technology that is vastly superior, but most nyc buildings still use old heating tech). I don't feel that falls in line with the spirit of the whole MCI rent increase. It is supposed to be for major capital improvements on the property. Just my interpretation but perhaps the courts view it differently...
Is it really? Tell me just exactly how many burners have you changed to arrive at this opinion?
The "courts" have nothing to do with things per se; unless the issue winds up there. An office of NYS handles MCI applications and proceedings in accordance to their interpretation of the laws.
Long story short (again) both NYC and NYS know the effects of forcing landlords to keep units at below market rents. Long as the property owner is not in violation of any known laws regarding the safety, health and certain other aspects of his building neither can force property owners to do anything regarding capital improvements, minor or major.
Think many seem to have this idea that MCI increases are some sort of slam dunk for property owners; well they aren't.
Case in point; several years ago a the building replaced all the windows in a co-worker's building after a manhole explosion blew many of them out. Later the LL filed for a MCI increase for some other work *and* included the cost of new windows. A smart tenant picked up the scent and got word out. Long story short that portion of the increase was contested with DCHR and subsequently denied. Why? Because apparently the work was done to replace something damaged and not an "improvement". That is the windows would have to be repaired regardless.
Now has this building went with a system wide replacement of windows say for energy efficiency that would have been a different matter.
Like I said before, if these poor landlords cannot stand and afford to support us RS tenants,let them convert our buildings into coops. My type of building def qualifies. If some people are discussing how to avoid MCI, they don't have to receive mandatory brainwashing regarding the poor landlord population. These landlords have a different LLC for each building for a reason, we don't want to get into a discussion about tax evasion and other stuff.
According to that Met Council site, if the MCI increase is approved, it would be retroactive to 30 days after the application date. Not the date the work was completed (the 2 years that you're worried about).
From the Met Council link:
That is good to know!
Also I find strange that a small kitchen which is too small to even put a table to eat in is considered a room and therefore will be charged as a room for purposes of the MCI.
Better a burner than an entire new boiler. Again most of you just don't want to know do you?
Purpose behind creation of MCI scheme was to give landlords of rent controlled properties incentive to do major (and expensive) capital improvements even when the rent rolls didn't support the work. Reason why the rent rolls didn't support the work is because rent control laws controlled what the LL could charge. It bears reminding of just what much of the rental housing stock in places like South Bronx, East Village, Lower East Side and elsewhere looked like in the 1970's until really rather recently in places. Landlords couldn't cover major work out of the rent so they let buildings go to pieces.
Am beginning to think many would prefer living in dirty nasty hovel than spend a little more in rent for a better building.
Life's losers are those who did not pay the insider price for the rent-controlled apartments in the 1980's in places like the Upper West Side (think of prices well under 100K).
And today, these people (now senior citizens) still live in those apartments. The appliances are old or cheap Home Depot, the kitchen cabinets are from 1940, and the apartments are just tired and rundown. But they are trapped because their rent is well-below market. So where can they go?
Meanwhile, the couple who lives above them bought the apartment in 1983. They renovated it, it's beautiful, and now it's worth well over $1 million. They've paid off their mortgage, and the monthly maintenance is about the same as the rent of the losers below them. Or, they can sell the unit, bank half, and take the other half to buy a beautiful retirement home outside NYC.
There are a ton of these losers all around Manhattan. And their bitterness and resentment must be incredible.
Life's losers are those who did not pay the insider price for the rent-controlled apartments in the 1980's in places like the Upper West Side (think of prices well under 100K).
And today, these people (now senior citizens) still live in those apartments. The appliances are old or cheap Home Depot, the kitchen cabinets are from 1940, and the apartments are just tired and rundown. But they are trapped because their rent is well-below market. So where can they go?
Meanwhile, the couple who lives above them bought the apartment in 1983. They renovated it, it's beautiful, and now it's worth well over $1 million. They've paid off their mortgage, and the monthly maintenance is about the same as the rent of the losers below them. Or, they can sell the unit, bank half, and take the other half to buy a beautiful retirement home outside NYC.
There are a ton of these losers all around Manhattan. And their bitterness and resentment must be incredible.
There is a reason why rent stabilized/control tenants are a well organized and powerful advocacy group while people living in the projects are not. The demographics and education level are different. Plenty of people living in rent control/stabilized apartment who are educated and scamming the system with owning apartments on the side while living in a rent stabilized/controlled apartment.
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.
