U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-18-2010, 10:00 AM
 
19 posts, read 51,830 times
Reputation: 19

Advertisements

[quote=victorfox;13343131]This thread is about buying out a rent regulated tenant. In mid paragraph you switch the topic trying to sneak in information in an attempt to "educate" tenants ....What is your TRUE agenda here ...

.... Only NY and a couple of other states have rent stabilization laws in the books, the rest of the 40 something states are all free market states and they're doing just fine without rent stabilization. They let the market determine what the rent price will be. The city has NO right..."

[/QUOTE

There was much talk up thread of unscrupulous tactics to drive tenants from their legal rightful homes. I offered a little insight into the law as a head's up for the unscrupulous landlord (be careful), as a counterpoint.

Moreover, this is a democracy, we DO determine the laws with our votes. The city DOES have the right to make the laws. You imply a desire to exist above the law. Perhaps it is individuals like you who make such laws necessary?

Also, the recent artificial pump of the real estate market across the country and the devastation of its collapse one would think presents sobering commentary to this topic. Of course, why not just destroy the economy and the lives of many of the nation's citizenry and our fiscal future, so that a few can make a tidy profit?


40 something states do not have the incredibly high pumped up rents that NYC has therefor they have no need of these policies. Furthermore, if the rent gouging and unlawful tactics alluded to here were to be given free reign NYC would lose it's value, as many of the people who comprise NYC's great melting pot would then be excluded, for example it would be prohibitively expensive to the creative classes who contribute their cultural capital and diversity...NYC would then resemble other mediocre cities in the USA. The reason you can even contemplate such high rents is due to NYC's value. You'd shoot yourself in the foot by eliminating that for the sake of your own individual desire for a higher profit: NYC fortunately recognizes the bigger civic picture for and has not interest in scrapping that so a few developer can fleece the place and core the apple. Fortunately, the city understands this. Mathjack107 also understands it: the role the regulated rents play in his a real estate business model.
There’s much landlord 1984 double speak here though: rent regulated apartments ARE market rate. They are at the market rate for rent regulated apartments.
And yes, for every unlawful tactic of unlawful tactics and harassment there is likewise equal opportunity for tenants, so equipoise is reached and many are the landlord that illegally deregulates the apartments by cooking the books and filing false certifications and affidavits, ghost tenancies, eviction specialists, etc., etc. Equipoise is reached by the tenants counter tactics, the court system, the attorney general, city and state taxation system, and the IRS. Scratching the surface of course


Leaving enmity and politics aside and returning to the Buyout topic:

Mathjack107, you are in a better position to understand the buyout issue than many here as you have described it as part of your business model (as is rent regulation a part of your model). What is your take on the buyout calculations in these various scenarios? I can see if you have a tenant that you feel may move out in short order, the incentive to increase the buyout offer isn't there. When IS it in your interest to increase the buyout? I imagine there’s some highly desirable apartments in the city that are not profiting the building owners and if they can move the tenant out will yield a gold mine. One would think that such a situation would warrant a very high buy out offer, even though the landlord’s profit may not make it to the stratosphere…it will still leave the atmosphere. Why hold onto a regulated tenant like this?

Last edited by Lovegasoline; 03-18-2010 at 11:26 AM..

 
Old 03-18-2010, 10:54 AM
 
19 posts, read 51,830 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
A tenant owns no rights or priveledges. he only has whats extended to him by the lease or local laws.
The same could be said for your deed. It's a piece of paper that gets it's meaning by the laws and statues.

Actually, a tenant has lots of rights and privileges that go far beyond the lease or local laws and originate in the US Constitution. Much of the tenancy rights are a reflection of these constitutional rights. The same can be said for you and your deed.
 
Old 03-18-2010, 11:32 AM
 
19 posts, read 51,830 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorfox View Post
Besides, RENT STABILIZATION is the reason why we have slumlords who neglect their buildings and let it decay in the first place.
No. You are wrong and you insult the many fine landlords of NYC who treat their rent regulated tenants and their rent regulated apartments with respect. Rent stabilization (or regulation) is not the reason certain people behave immorally, unethically, or illegally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorfox View Post
...tenant is bad by way of conducting themselves in an inappropriate and undesirable manner that degrades the apartment building and neighborhood. Particularly in the outer boroughs, good neighborhoods go bad and bad neighborhoods remain bad or get worse and STALE due to the lack of movement of tenants moving in and out of the neighborhood
I apologize for taking the bait. The fact is the tenants you are trying to harass and force out of their homes are the very same tenants that have lived in abusively maintained buildings and who have created the desirable community and neighborhood that developers now want to cash in on and chase the very bedrock of the community out of their homes to for the sake of unwanted gentrification that only disrupts the communities. The communities are just fine, thank you and how no need or want for developers to raise their homes, break up families, and disrupt the culture.

Last edited by Lovegasoline; 03-18-2010 at 12:20 PM..
 
Old 03-18-2010, 01:59 PM
 
461 posts, read 1,769,819 times
Reputation: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovegasoline View Post
if the rent gouging and unlawful tactics alluded to here were to be given free reign NYC would lose it's value, as many of the people who comprise NYC's great melting pot would then be excluded, for example it would be prohibitively expensive to the creative classes who contribute their cultural capital and diversity...NYC would then resemble other mediocre cities in the USA. The reason you can even contemplate such high rents is due to NYC's value. There’s much landlord 1984 double speak here though: rent regulated apartments ARE market rate. They are at the market rate for rent regulated apartments.

First, price gouging in rental apartments DO NOT exist! I've said that many times on this board until my face turns blue. I can't turn around and decide to rent an apartment for $4,000 a month in the middle of the Bronx. Even if the apartment was deregulated I still couldn't do it. Legally I could if was deregulated BUT who is actually dumb enough to pay $4,000 a month in the middle of the Bronx? NO ONE!

So what are my options as a landlord??? Either stick to my guns and wait it out and in the process LOSE MONEY while the apartment remains vacant in the hope someone is crazy enough to rent it for 4K OR I take the SMART common sense option and LOWER my rent to what other comparable apartments in the neighborhood are going for which is determined by the MARKET.

Oh wow..there's that dirty word again... MARKET! Ewwwww I get goose bumps just saying it. The horror!

The MARKET determines what the rent price is going to be in a particular neighborhood. Not the city and these liberal democrats who think they are doing a service to the people. They're NOT! They are making it worse and more expensive to rent by passing stricter rent stabilization laws. No matter what pro-tenant, pro-rent stabilization law the city passes, at the end of the day, the law of free MARKET and SUPPLY AND DEMAND will rule over any rent stabilization.

The Bronx and the other outer boroughs have become the scapegoat for high rents in Manhattan. Manhaatan is its own animal and should NEVER be compared to the Bronx market or the other outer borough markets. Whatever pro-rent stabilization law is passed, it's primarily based on what is happening in Manhattan ONLY. These unfair laws are passed and trickles down to the Bronx and the other boroughs.

Deregulation may be an issue in Manhattan where a landlord can turn around and convert it into a co-op and sell it for a million bucks BUT that isn't the case in the Bronx. The Bronx doesn't have any issues with apartments becoming deregulated. Yet these laws that were enacted to suppress Manhattan landlords are effecting Bronx landlords as well which is unfair.

I'm all for rent stabilization if there were such a thing as OPERATING COST STABILIZATION. If there were price stabilzation on HEATING OIL, PROPERTY TAXES, WATER & SEWAGE, INSURANCE, etc. (which there isn't) then you wouldn't hear landlords complaining and you wouldn't see runned down buildings. At the end of the day, business is business and you need to make ends meet in order to keep your business alive.

The facts are that there is NO such thing as expense control/stabilization for landlords. So when you have a tenant paying below fair MARKET rent of $500 for a 3 bedroom apartment where the fair market rent in the neighborhood is $1,700, the LANDLORD is actually SUBSIDIZING that tenant out of his own pockets. Does that sound fair to you??? Of coarse not! If the city wants to keep these tenants paying below market rents, then let it be on the CITY'S dime, not on the landlord's. What's fair is fair and rent stabilization is NOT being fair to landlords.
 
Old 03-18-2010, 03:23 PM
 
19 posts, read 51,830 times
Reputation: 19
This isn't the place to argue real estate laws. But landlords crying poor? Real estate and banking run this city. I will say however with the decrease of real estate values nationwide and in NYC, as well as the almost unheard of decrease in NYC rental values, the RGB (rent guideline board) which governs the annual rent regulated lease increases, the past year issued the highest percentage increase in recent memory. Let us also recall that there was also recently an introduction of a RGB 'poor tax', which penalized regulated tenants with low rent who had lived in their apartments for over 6 (?) years and forced them to pay higher than standard lease increases...and which went beyond the charter and authority of the RBG (it was challenged in a lawsuit and the RGB lost: they have no authority to impose such arbitrary higher rates). So while NYC market rate apartments are falling in value, the RGB board adds record rent increases not justified by a correspondent market rate or owner operation expenses. Smells like corruption to me.
 
Old 03-18-2010, 03:34 PM
 
8,750 posts, read 15,601,456 times
Reputation: 4168
Lovegas, you are really talking about a totally different topic. Let's state this as clearly as possibl and stick to the subject at hand: The Tenant WANTS to move out, and as a result, is expecting a payout. So the issue is very simple: The purpose of the buyout is when LANDLORDS want a tenant to move, the LANDLORD initiates the process and compensates the Tenant because theoretically the Tenant does not want to move and has a right to be there.

NOW in this case, the TENANT wants to move, of their own free will, and believes they are entitled to money from the Landlord. This Tenant would like to use that money for their child's college education, or whatever extraneous thing that has ZERO to do with moving, or finding a new place to live. Furthermore, this Tenant believes $300,000 is nothing these days, and nobody can live on that (nevermind that they are living on much less than that now as their income is in the $20K range per year, and their rent must therefore be a pittance).

So how can you justify extorting a Landlord when in fact the tenant is the one that wants to move?!!!! Stick to the topic and answer the question.
 
Old 03-18-2010, 03:47 PM
 
19 posts, read 51,830 times
Reputation: 19
I believe this was answered up thread by other posters.

The OP claims an interest in moving due to harassment (doesn't sound like 'her own free will'). LL however intends to force OP to move based on harassment so he can take something of value from her. OP wants to retrieve some value from her contractual rights if she is being coerced to surrender them. LL appears to agree to a buyout "of his own free will,' but wants OP to initiate negotiations.

OP feels her lease has a value, the LL apparently agrees, OP intends to negotiate. But I agree with you that this is wrong: the only two that win are the landlord and the tenant. The regulated apartment is permanently destroyed. We do not know all the details of the rent etc, but a better solution would be if the OP moved in relative for a couple years and passed on succession rights. Then the apartment could stay on regulation for another 35 years. Better for NYC.

PS: There's no law against this. Where does extortion enter in?

Last edited by Lovegasoline; 03-18-2010 at 03:58 PM..
 
Old 03-18-2010, 05:30 PM
 
65,000 posts, read 66,516,088 times
Reputation: 43394
leases have no value.... rights and priveledges have no monetary value. the only thing that has value is if the landlord sees fit ,to pay the tenent for the right to break a contract. no different then anyone breaking any other binding contract and wants out. could be any business deal, it really dosnt matter.

you arrive at a deal for breaking the contract. its plain and simple.

in some apartments and areas we may have no interest in breaking the contract. it may take to long to sell , may not command enough of a profit and so we arent interested. there is no value in the leases,rights, or anything else to us.

we usually pay from 5 to 10% of the value in our central park south apartments because those sell fast. 5% is the norm for us now . but like i said it all depends on how fast we think we can sell and how desirable we think the location and apartments are and how motivated we are to break the contract.
 
Old 03-18-2010, 06:39 PM
 
461 posts, read 1,769,819 times
Reputation: 361
It's not a "poor" tax, it's a longevity rent
increase that is put into place so tenants that pay cheap rent can catch up to reality rates for this day and age. I might add that NOT everyone that has lived in a RS apartment for a long time is poor. Many of them have great job/careers and make good money.

Its people like you and rent stabilization advocates that name it a "poor" tax to gain sympathy from the masses to use as a tool to convince NYers how "greedy" and evil landlords are. The real evil and greedy people are the rent advocate groups. Always crying broke looking for a handout on the landlord's dime. Oh please!
 
Old 03-18-2010, 07:19 PM
 
19 posts, read 51,830 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorfox View Post
It's not a "poor" tax, it's a longevity rent
increase
That's funny!

Longevity tax! Perhaps all essential services and other arenas should be treated this way.
If you use the subway more than 6 years you pay a 20% longevity premium.
If you buy gasoline more than six years, you pay a 25% longevity tax.
Subscribe to a newspaper or magazine more than 6 years you pay twice as much on the seventh year for your longevity subscription.
How about own a property for six years and have a longevity property tax of an additional 40% applied, after all it it would help out our civic coffers. Why not be penalized like tenants?
After you turn 60 your food should be taxed an additional 40%.
Longevity federal income tax applied.
Have a cell phone contract for more than 4 years? Pay a 40% premium even if you switch carriers.

Spin it any way you want it is illegal and has been ruled on as such.
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.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top