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.
Umm...the Tenant has a right to stay as long as they want to so long as they abide by the rules of the lease of course. However, when the Tenant WANTS to move...why should they be entitled to anything? When the Landlord wants to BREAK the lease to remove the Tenant I understand the Tenant should be compensated in some way, however that is not the case here. The Tenant of their own free will WANTS to move...so why are they asking for money exactly? The purpose of a "buyout" is to compensate the Tenant for breaking the LL breaking the Tenancy..but since it is the Tenant wanting to move...why are they entitled to a dime exactly? This is nothing more than a monumental rape and abuse of the system.....nothing more.
The OP wrote in the first post:
The landlord has asked me to name my price and he will consider it or reject it and continue to offer me renewal leases.
So it looks like the landlord is amenable to the game and is not feeling victimized.
Not that I think this is FAIR. It's not fair, but that's the way things play out when the laws are the way they are.
Nope...what we know here is that the Tenant informed the Landlord that she is interested in moving out. Since she is moving out, the Tenant feels she deserves money and has an easy way to extort money from the victim (aka Landlord). Since the Landlord has no choice but to pay the Tenant IF he wants her to move out, because this abuse is rampant throughout the city, the Landlord was NICE ENOUGH to offer her the chance to name her price to see if she is even remotely reasonable/sane in her buyout. I suspect once he hears her price of $200,000 or whatever she attempts to extort from him, he will say NO..and she will say bye-bye to her 3,000 sf Alabama mansion and hello to her current rat trap roach motel apt.
Umm...the Tenant has a right to stay as long as they want to so long as they abide by the rules of the lease of course. However, when the Tenant WANTS to move...why should they be entitled to anything?
He's not "entitled" to anything in either scenario. The landlord can say "You're going to move anyway, so I'm not going to pay you anything." That doesn't mean the tenant is a demon for asking. If the landlord doesn't offer anything, he just faces the risk of the tenant not moving and waiting for a better offer.
The tenant is saying "My contract with you is for sale. What will you pay me to break the contract." And the landlord can say "Nothing. I think you'll break it anyway." or put out a figure. And that, my friend, is not "extortion." That's business.
we have a standing offer to our rent stabilized tenents in a building where we own co-op apartments over looking central park. the lease buyout offer is 50,000 as these apartments can be sold for over 1 million ... its all location location location.... if we werent interested in selling the apartments but re-renting them then the buyout would be a fraction of that offered deal or maybe nothing at all would be offered. depends on the rent we could get... but at this point none of the partners including ourselves (my wife and i) want to be a landlord any more
Last edited by mathjak107; 12-10-2008 at 05:22 PM..
He's not "entitled" to anything in either scenario. The landlord can say "You're going to move anyway, so I'm not going to pay you anything." That doesn't mean the tenant is a demon for asking. If the landlord doesn't offer anything, he just faces the risk of the tenant not moving and waiting for a better offer.
The tenant is saying "My contract with you is for sale. What will you pay me to break the contract." And the landlord can say "Nothing. I think you'll break it anyway." or put out a figure. And that, my friend, is not "extortion." That's business.
this is exactley true, if the tenent isnt planning on moving then what your doing is paying him to sign whats called a lease termination agreement.... we want to break our lease with him and are willing to pay so we can sell it and profit and he wants an incentive to allow us to do that... we sold 7 out of 9 apartments that way and it was win win for everyone. of course it was just a shame we had to pay him anything but thats our stupid stabilization rules
I don't really agree with what this tenant is doing but I don't think it's extortion either. If someone has something of value and someone else wants to obtain it, negotiations ensue and a deal is either made or not.
It sounded to me like the tenant was floating a trial balloon, "Well, I may want to move. What would you give me if I do?" It makes for a very interesting scenario: the (probably) very wealthy landlord is at the mercy of the lowly tenant by virtue of the RS laws here.
The only reason I'm leaning toward siding with the tenant is that they mentioned that the LL was harassing them. If that truly is the case and is a very large part of their motivation to move, then they should not simply walk away and let the LL have the windfall.
1st of all! The main purpose of the rent stabilization laws are to prevent Landlords from Raising rent whenever they pleased.
2nd of all! SO WHAT IF THE PERSON WANTS TO MOVE; That's IRRELEVANT!! Meaning; if the landlord wants them to move out and since the value of the apt. has increased so dramatically (allowing the landlord to obtain larger profits if the tenent moves out i.e. lbjcats) the tenent has every right to this buy out!
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 12-10-2008 at 08:59 PM..
Reason: Rude
the origional premise was a fair idea but it ended up turning the idea into a charity case where land lords ended up absorbing the fact that after decades the rents fell very behind market value . we had this discussion earlier in another thread.
everyone should be able to make a living based on what the markets will pay anyone of us for what it is we do. its not like the people your subsiding may even have low incomes. its strictly based on the fact the person lucked out by living in the building along time...
on the surface to most new yorkers it looks like a great idea but the reality is it rewarded the few that have been in them for decades, it created a supply shortage because except for luxury buildings and some low income projects which no one qualifies for except the very poor i know of no rentals build in decades at least from the mid 70's on so we all pay higher rents then we should be. when an apartment becomes vacant it goes up 18% ,plus capital improvements in the building ,plus a multiplier for how long the tenants there. bingo,right at market value.. rents have been increasing at regular 3% rates now being even higher than alot of un-regulated increases. the only thing built were co-ops and condos . so much for the idea it holds down rents for eveyone else too.... the problem is for a person who owns these apartments they arent paid the fair market wage until that tenant moves for their own livlihood. no one here im sure wants to be paid less than market wage for what they do.
let me put it another way:
theres alot of people in nyc who think teachers in the city have benefits, especially legacy benefits that are sooooo out of whack with the amount of days a teacher actually works per year . there are teachers i know collecting 75,000 a year with full medical for life for a job where they barely even worked 9 months a year and everyone else gets nothing from their jobs and they make due with 2 weeks vacation and work almost 3 months longer a year....
i dont want to debate whether they are or arent over compensated as my wife and daughter are in that profession and it has no bearing,as far as my feeling everyone should make as much as the markets will allow them. but suppose the city told teachers we are cutting your benefits and your income and any student in your class thats is below a certain debt to income ratio regardless of lifestyle you have to give that money to whether you wanted to or not.... this is on top of your normal taxes.. and what if the city only did this to teachers and no other job?????????
i dont think teachers would be very happy do you?
Last edited by mathjak107; 12-11-2008 at 02:17 AM..
ask yourself this...if it works why is most of new york paying 20-25% more in rent at market value rates then those that have stabilized apartments for many years and the same as those who recently moved into one....
supply thats why..... good, nice rentals are in very short supply
realize also most buildings in nyc are co-op status i would think at this point as most buildings were converted to avoid this mess , once the origional tenants move out those are all deregulated anyway .....
Umm I think you are all confused here so lets set the record straight. The Tenant RENTS an apartment, the Landlord OWNS the apt and building. The Tenant does not HAVE something of value, the Tenant RENTS, at grossly below market, an apt from the Landlord who OWNS the building and the apt. The Tenant is CHOOSING to leave the apt, but instead of simply vacating the apt, which is what a Tenant does, the Tenant somehow believes that they are entitled to a piece of any and all upside which may occur. The question is WHY AS A RENTER DO YOU FEEL YOU ARE ENTITLED TO ANYTHING. You seem to be missing what it means to be a renter and what it means to be an OWNER. Your renting the apt has nothing to do with the value the LL may or may not have, yet somehow you believe you should get a portion? If the LL wants YOU to move then he is breaking the contract and should compensate you, not as a percentage of the upside of the apt, as this has nothing to do with you, but for your inconvenience and costs for relocation. And since the Tenant WANTS to move...and SHE IS BREAKING THE CONTRACT VOLUNTARILY, why does she feel entitled to anything? I am lost here...
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.
