Rent Stabilization Succession Rights...Is It REALLY Fair??? (New York, Albany: real estate, cheap apartment)

[newtoli]

Court Rules Against Succession Rights in Apartments - New York Times

In a decision that could affect hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, a state appeals court has ruled that rent-stabilized apartments cannot be passed on to a live-in relative after the tenant named on the lease dies or moves out.

In a decision that could affect hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, a state appeals court has ruled that rent-stabilized apartments cannot be passed on to a live-in relative after the tenant named on the lease dies or moves out.

That was the start, and the laws were reworked in the '90's, will pull the addn'l regs when I have time.

It also depends on whether the apartment is "Rent Controlled" or "Rent Stabilized". There were changes made in '97 that severely limited the cases in which this can be done.

Here is some more info:

Family members can take over the apartment, but are subject to regular rental increases - the rent does not stay "fixed" at that rate forever.
http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/Rent/Fac...s/orafac30.htm

[DAS]

Originally Posted by newtoli

This is not the law any longer, only for families that were Grandfathered in under the old laws, you can no longer pass apartments on to children under rent control, unless it was an apartment rented during the time those laws were in effect.

We're referring to rent stabilization, not rent control. You are correct Rent controlled tenants were there before 1970 and cannot pass the apts down. Please don't exchange the terms this causes confusion in discussions.

[newtoli]

With Stabilization though, you do not keep at an apartment at the original rent forever- you are subject to regulated increases every renewal.

Under Rent Control - the son in the OP would keep the Apt at $500/mo forever. Under stabilization, he would be subject to the yearly regulated increase.

Also with Stabilization, the apartment becomes deregulated after it reaches a $2k/mo rent, and the household income reaches $175k.

[DAS]

What is the point that you are trying to make? The OP started the thread about rent stabilization and an issue concerning it. So why bring up something that cannot be done under rent control?

There are enough people on this forum that think they are the same thing already. The people under rent control are old. At the very least, they can be no less than 58 years old if they rented the apt at the age of 20 in 1969, and remained there with no major repairs. They can not pass it on to their relatives. So why even bring it up?

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by DAS

What is the point that you are trying to make? The OP started the thread about rent stabilization and an issue concerning it. So why bring up something that cannot be done under rent control?

There are enough people on this forum that think they are the same thing already. The people under rent control are old. At the very least, they can be no less than 58 years old if they rented the apt at the age of 20 in 1969, and remained there with no major repairs. They can not pass it on to their relatives. So why even bring it up?

Agreed. DAS is corect in pointing out the difference between rent control and rent stabilization in terms of succession rights.

[newtoli]

Originally Posted by DAS

What is the point that you are trying to make? The OP started the thread about rent stabilization and an issue concerning it. So why bring up something that cannot be done under rent control?

There are enough people on this forum that think they are the same thing already. The people under rent control are old. At the very least, they can be no less than 58 years old if they rented the apt at the age of 20 in 1969, and remained there with no major repairs. They can not pass it on to their relatives. So why even bring it up?

The point I'm making is that the OP's situation could not happen now. No one keeps an apartment at an insanely low rate any longer with no increases.

The situation OP describes sounds like a situation under the old rules of rent control. He is talking about people passing their crazy cheap apartments down to their relatives as the same rate. Under stabilization, there would be rental increases and the apartment could eventually be eligible for deregulation.

[A_Better_Bronx_2morrow]

Originally Posted by newtoli

With Stabilization though, you do not keep at an apartment at the original rent forever- you are subject to regulated increases every renewal.

Under Rent Control - the son in the OP would keep the Apt at $500/mo forever. Under stabilization, he would be subject to the yearly regulated increase.

The example given was rent stabilized NOT rent control...2 different animals.

Succession rights STILL exist for rent stabilized apartments. Even though you get a renewal increase every 1 or 2 years, the increase would only be between $15-$25 which is absolutely NOTHING.

When the parents moved out and lets say the son had NOT moved in, the landlord would of added either a 16% increase for a 1 year vacancy lease or 20% increase for a 2 year vacancy lease. Not to mention add an addition .6% longevity increase for every year the parents lived there if they lived there 8 years or more PLUS if after adding all those increases and the rent still doesn't increase to the point of $1,900 a month, then the landlord will take the decision to GUT RENOVATE the apartment from head to toe to justify the $1,900 rent price.

By the son taking over the apartment, the apartment is still way below market even after the $15 or $25 lease renewal increase. So those lease renewal increases are ABSOLUTELY nothing.

[newtoli]

Originally Posted by A_Better_Bronx_2morrow

The example given was rent stabilized not rent control...2 different animals.

Succession rights STILL exist for rent stabilized apartments. Even though you get a renewal increase every 1 or 2 years, the increase would only be between $15-$25 which is absolutely NOTHING.

When the parents moved out and lets say the son had NOT moved in, the landlord would of added either a 16% increase for a 1 year vacancy lease or 20% increase for a 2 year vacancy lease. Not to mention add an addition .6% longevity increase for every year the parents lived there if they lived there 8 years or more PLUS if after adding all those increases and the rent still doesn't increase to the point of $1,900 a month, then the landlord will take the decision to GUT RENOVATE the apartment from head to toe to justify the $1,900 rent price.

By the son taking over the apartment, the apartment is still way below market even after the $15 or $25 lease renewal increase. So those lease renewal increases are ABSOLUTELY.

The son cannot "move in" he'd have to already be living there for 2 years prior to move out to take over the lease.

They have limited the secession rights to only be allowed to happen once with no vacancy increase. Next person to take over pays the vacancy rate.

The increase amount is 7.25%, which I think is a pretty fair yearly increase.

I haven't known anyone with that great of a deal on a rent stabilized deal. The rent you're quoting is 25% of market rate.

IMO, I think as long as the yearly increases are, the person was already living in the apartment, and the apartment has a deregulation limit ($2k/$175k), it's a fair deal. I'd think there could be some tweaking done as to deregulation with apt size, # of bedrooms per person affecting deregulation status as well...

[tpk-nyc]

The question is: What social benefit is gained by creating a tenant dynasty? Is it not, in a sense, creating a heriditary aristocracy, blessed, by virture of their birth, with cheap housing forever? A $500 three-bedroom is worth far more than most trust funds.

Surely this is the opposite of what was intended.

[A_Better_Bronx_2morrow]

Originally Posted by newtoli

The son cannot "move in" he'd have to already be living there for 2 years prior to move out to take over the lease.

They have limited the secession rights to only be allowed to happen once with no vacancy increase. Next person to take over pays the vacancy rate.

The increase amount is 7.25%, which I think is a pretty fair yearly increase.

I haven't known anyone with that great of a deal on a rent stabilized deal. The rent you're quoting is 25% of market rate.

IMO, I think as long as the yearly increases are, the person was already living in the apartment, and the apartment has a deregulation limit ($2k/$175k), it's a fair deal. I'd think there could be some tweaking done as to deregulation with apt size, # of bedrooms per person affecting deregulation status as well...

You are WRONG. If you read the example correctly, the son grew up with the parents in the same rent stabilized apartment. Yes, thats more than 2 years! He is 23.

So you mean to tell me that it is perfectly OK for the son to pay $500 for a 3 bedroom JUST BECAUSE he will get a lease renewal increase every 1 or 2 years even though those increase are SO SMALL they don't even matter or make difference.

Is that your way of justifying this law?