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.
Good for you, people of Stony Brook! It seems you have even driven some weasel politicians and officials out of their holes to support you. One thing I did notice on the report is that they talked to a landlord of a boarding house and he said he was legal and had a permit. However, the reporter said that he has 8 students and last year they made an ordinance limiting it to 4. The landlord said he was going to fight the new ordinance. So, beware, they are going to fight to keep making their easy money.
Now you've got to get this boarding house issue RIGHT. OBH, please email my suggestions to the contact you have in this matter. Here they are:
The "rental permit" should not apply to boarding house situations. As you have seen, it is too easy for the new single-family homeowner to either get or ignore this permit and simply stuff the house to the rafters with students. There should be an entirely new and separate category with its own codes for this type of real estate use. The codes should: ensure safety of all occupants, ensure QOL for the community, specify that boarding house landlording is not a "get rich quick scheme" (as many now seem to view it), but a trust and a responsibility to the student occupants and to the community. This will attract the right sort of landlords and discourage the wrong ones.
Ideas for the "boarding house rental permit" codes:
First, write the codes so that there is no way for the landlord to make an "end run" around the codes by renting to a single student and then have that student sublet to other tenants. If a house is being used as a boarding house by a single leaseholder, the landlord is responsible and cannot play "deaf, dumb and blind." Make that iron-clad.
An owner of a former single-family house seeking to make it a boarding house CANNOT buy the house and immediately fill it with students. They must first APPLY for the right to be a boarding house.
This is where you get the taxing authorities involved ... if the application for a boarding house is accepted and the owner gets the boarding house rental permit, taxes should be assessed in the commercial, not residential category.
A former single-family house that the owner is seeking to be used as a boarding house must first:
Upgrade certain home systems from the typical single-family home to support the additional tenant load of a boarding house. Systems I suggest to upgrade would be:
Septic Tanks. This is provided that houses in the area use them. I don't know. However, to be a boarding house, if the house has one, it should be inspected and if too small, made larger, or if in need of maintenance or cleaning, it should be done. Annual inspections are required to renew the annual boarding house rental permit.
Electrical System. Big cause of fires in a single-family home that is overloaded is too much electrical use via tangles of extension cords. Imagine four students getting ready for class in the morning after taking their showers and 4 blowdryers going off at the same time. Imagine that overload causing a fire to break out in the wires within the walls of a home that became a boarding house and has not been properly updated. The electrical system should be upgraded to the highest voltage. All the outlets should be grounded types. Additional outlets should be installed in each room to discourage extension cords. If the house has old seventies style wiring or an old circuit breaker or even fuses they should all be replaced.
Undergo an initial inspection from a fire inspector, and upon annual renew of the boarding house rental permit, an annual inspection. Things the inspector should look for:
Carbon monoxide and fire alarms on ALL floors including the basement. Only one of each in the house is not enough.
No "burglar bars" on doors or windows of a boarding house. Once the fire department cuts them off, it is often too late.
No deadbolts inside the house that have no knob and require a key to open.
If there are upstairs bedrooms, the landlord should provide a portable/folding fire ladder for each bedroom.
Extension cord use of cords under a certain strength and use of cords that do not have the UL stamp on them. Fire inspector should remove them and counsel students and landlords on proper types to use.
A fire extinguisher in the kitchen. This fire extinguisher should be checked that it is operational and that its contents have not expired.
Some of you may say "we will have to hire people" to do this, etc., etc. or it will cost the community too much money. Nonsense. Fire Dept. Chiefs and Asst. Chiefs can be trained to do this. Plus what happens when all NYS residents have to get their car inspected annually? WE pay the fee. The landlords of boarding houses will pay for their annual fire inspection.
Other requirements:
Bathroom requirements. There should be X amount of FULL baths for each X amount of students. Tubs and showers should also have safety bars and non-slip coating to avoid injuries to tenants.
Parking. I noticed on News 12 they showed a house whose front lawn was totally paved over into a parking lot. That should not be allowed. It is unsightly. Parking restrictions for these homes should be devised that are reasonable. Turning the front lawn into a parking lot is not one of them.
Homeowner's Insurance. I am assuming that many of these landlords get the cheapest homeowner's insurance and pretend the homes are single-family owner-occupied homes to the insurance companies. No more of that! In order to get and maintain a boarding house rental permit, a landlord must show proof of adequate and correct insurance for the situation. A landlord must also get an umbrella policy in case of injuries sustained by students.
This is all I can think of right now. What else, people, do you think should be required of student boarding houses?
I largely agree with the protesters that the situation has escalated recently.
And, like a viral infection, once a house or a couple of houses on a given block turn into such "investments", fleeing of regular families follows, which spreads the infection further, so whole areas become eye sores, sadly.
I do not quite agree that SBU should be the main target and should be stepping in and policing all this. Close to impossible to enforce by the university, outside campus. The town needs to allocate resources, tighten up policies etc.
The university should be investing in more and more reasonably priced on-campus housing - agree with that. Especially in an area without any relevant apartment complexes (quite unusual for a college town).
OBH advises against pulling the race card, but in this instance, from first-hand observations, I would say that by far the largest % of new "investors" contributing to the problem are Asian (I have several students who's parents have done this recently). The last 5 years, this idea has seen explosive following among Asian parents residing here and abroad, has spread to some of my faculty colleagues even; it is being actively promoted among the Asian community.
On the bright side, despite overcrowding, these kids are not known for wild parties, so they are less of an irritation to the residents than the frat boys (from houses like the 150 Christian). They also often walk or use bicycles, thereby no visible parking lots in front of such boarding houses.
Typically, ownership is in the name of a child, living in the house (living there really or on paper), so they get STAR legally; taxes cannot be touched either. The rest of the occupants (typically all Asian) are claimed as relatives. Very hard to chase on legal grounds unless a house becomes a target and police investigation follows.
Asian international students are also fully complicit and voluntarily enter in what maybe an abusive relationship with the "investor", accepting sub-standard conditions (often dangerous) for what they perceive as a good deal. Again, very hard to crack down when both parties play along and hide the situation.
Having said this, of course, greed transcends races, and there are plenty of slumlords of all colors around here. Here on LI, many factors come to enable this situation - retirees who cannot afford the cost of living, who leave behind worn down houses attractive for these "investors" (this is quite frustrating for young couples looking for affordable houses); lack of apartment complexes and any reasonable alternatives for students; and the spread of the idea that it actually works (as described above) and can be used to have the kid live for free during their studies and maybe even make a profit.
Tightened regulations is the way to go, but requires policing (by the town, not the university), which costs money...
It is good that the news reached the newspapers, TV and got the attention of some officials. I am all for corrective measures on this, to discourage people.
BTW, maybe that Italian owner of 150 Christian Ave should have had patience to recoup his investment in less painful ways - a house nearby on the other side of Christian just sold for $1.7mil, which took me by surprise...
Well, it seems that the protest led to something good.
The university took it seriously - tonight I received at home an explanation letter, which is also posted on the SBU website (may have been posted earlier):
In short, the university agrees to scrutinize all postings on the off-campus housing site to include only legal rentals (should have been done long time ago), to educate students better about their rights, responsibilities and town regulations (not sure if this will achieve much esp. for the kids looking for the best deal no matter what), and it promises in uncertain terms to expand on-campus housing.
Still, it seems like a success or a step forward even if it's just legal protection.
I still maintain that to make a difference, the town has to tighten regulations and enforce them, which costs money and is not easy to do if the 2 parties involved (renters and landlords) are co-conspirators...
Well, it seems that the protest led to something good.
The university took it seriously - tonight I received at home an explanation letter, which is also posted on the SBU website (may have been posted earlier):
In short, the university agrees to scrutinize all postings on the off-campus housing site to include only legal rentals (should have been done long time ago), to educate students better about their rights, responsibilities and town regulations (not sure if this will achieve much esp. for the kids looking for the best deal no matter what), and it promises in uncertain terms to expand on-campus housing.
Still, it seems like a success or a step forward even if it's just legal protection.
I still maintain that to make a difference, the town has to tighten regulations and enforce them, which costs money and is not easy to do if the 2 parties involved (renters and landlords) are co-conspirators...
Got that letter today.....nothing more than a bunch of bs. The university is covering their butts. Its the town that needs to enforce the illegal activities.
I largely agree with the protesters that the situation has escalated recently.
And, like a viral infection, once a house or a couple of houses on a given block turn into such "investments", fleeing of regular families follows, which spreads the infection further, so whole areas become eye sores, sadly.
I do not quite agree that SBU should be the main target and should be stepping in and policing all this. Close to impossible to enforce by the university, outside campus. The town needs to allocate resources, tighten up policies etc.
The university should be investing in more and more reasonably priced on-campus housing - agree with that. Especially in an area without any relevant apartment complexes (quite unusual for a college town).
OBH advises against pulling the race card, but in this instance, from first-hand observations, I would say that by far the largest % of new "investors" contributing to the problem are Asian (I have several students who's parents have done this recently). The last 5 years, this idea has seen explosive following among Asian parents residing here and abroad, has spread to some of my faculty colleagues even; it is being actively promoted among the Asian community.
On the bright side, despite overcrowding, these kids are not known for wild parties, so they are less of an irritation to the residents than the frat boys (from houses like the 150 Christian). They also often walk or use bicycles, thereby no visible parking lots in front of such boarding houses.
Typically, ownership is in the name of a child, living in the house (living there really or on paper), so they get STAR legally; taxes cannot be touched either. The rest of the occupants (typically all Asian) are claimed as relatives. Very hard to chase on legal grounds unless a house becomes a target and police investigation follows.
Asian international students are also fully complicit and voluntarily enter in what maybe an abusive relationship with the "investor", accepting sub-standard conditions (often dangerous) for what they perceive as a good deal. Again, very hard to crack down when both parties play along and hide the situation.
Having said this, of course, greed transcends races, and there are plenty of slumlords of all colors around here. Here on LI, many factors come to enable this situation - retirees who cannot afford the cost of living, who leave behind worn down houses attractive for these "investors" (this is quite frustrating for young couples looking for affordable houses); lack of apartment complexes and any reasonable alternatives for students; and the spread of the idea that it actually works (as described above) and can be used to have the kid live for free during their studies and maybe even make a profit.
Tightened regulations is the way to go, but requires policing (by the town, not the university), which costs money...
It is good that the news reached the newspapers, TV and got the attention of some officials. I am all for corrective measures on this, to discourage people.
BTW, maybe that Italian owner of 150 Christian Ave should have had patience to recoup his investment in less painful ways - a house nearby on the other side of Christian just sold for $1.7mil, which took me by surprise...
When I referred to the race card, it was meant as that no one is deliberately singling out Asian property owners -- but as you've noted, a fair majority of the landlords are. Using the 2010 census, I looked into the homes in Stony Brook whether owner-occupied, empty, or rentals.
As of the 2010 census:
There were 5042 total houses:
4,846 were occupied
4,361 were owner-occupied (how many of these were multi-family units lying about being related?)
485 were renter-occupied
196 were vacant (have to wonder whether a fraction were rentals which didn't return their form.)
10% of occupied houses in 2010 were rentals. That number is probably higher now.
As for the $1.7 million dollar house on Christian: the property it was built upon was part of the John MacNamara/GMAC fraud holdings. CAR DEALER ADMITS FRAUD OF BILLIONS - NYTimes.com As long as the new owner doesn't try to see how many SBU students he can pack in there. That house has the makings of a party house extraordinaire. The pool and hot tub overlooking the creek are amazing.
Going back to the issue at hand -- while SBU can't be expected to enforce Brookhaven's codes, they are taking a step in the right direction provided they actually do require rental permits and check that those permits are in order with the town prior to listing them on the OCH website. Another thing the school can do is to build more dorms or grad apartments to keep up with the ever-growing student population. If SBU is reluctant to do that, perhaps reducing the number of students admitted would help.
I received the letter, which is partially olive branch, partially SBU's way of absolving itself of commuter students, partly laying blame where it belongs: the Town.
Brookhaven has to get its act together and enforce the laws.
Force the landlords hand too much, all these "investors" property will soon become abandonded property and then you have your squatters move in. Just drive down any neighborhood and look at boarded up homes, they are usually brokened in and have homeless or undesirables living in them. The police won't do anything about them other then make a report. If the towns do re-board them up, they're broken into again. I take illegal rentals over foreclosed/abandoned homes anytime. Get to the real root of the problem which as Crookhaven have pointed out, HIGH taxes and undesirable place to grow a family (problem across long island as a whole). All I see the anti-landlord sentiment moving in the direction of making "one blight" into a worser blight. I laughed when I saw the protest on news 12 follow by more laughing when the town supervisor Ed "champion" a crusade to "end this" blight with increase fines for everyone after reading articles about Suffolk county near bankruptcy and many future sources of revenues disappearing. Well gee can't raise taxes anymore as that will simply make more people leave the island.
And about the students safety, I think you underestimate a 20 year old being able to use their best judgement in stepping into a living hazard situation to save a few bucks.
Absolutely, the recent housing price appreciation is due to the investor purchase. Without investor purchase, housing value will be stagnant. It is all over the news.
It is funny that when people sell their house, they do not care whom they want to sell to. They want to sell into a bidding war with investors paying all cash. As a matter of fact, I know one homeowner at SB specifically told his neighbor to shut up about rental or not because he wants to sell his house to the highest bidder.
I bet all of you who post whatever on this board against rental, when time comes to sell your house, you won't care a bit about whom to sell to. It is hypocrisy all over the place, but people are selfish, so I understand.
Anyway, homeowners care about 3 things: home value, low noise, small number of cars on the driveway. As long as home value is high, no noise, fewer cars, everybody would be happy.
So the right approach to manage rental should be to keep investors in the game so that housing value could be high. On the other hand, force landlords to keep the house up-to-code, charge high fees on the number of cars on the driveway for rental home when the number is more than 3, and charge high noise penalty whenever it occurs. Now everybody would be happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_man55
Force the landlords hand too much, all these "investors" property will soon become abandonded property and then you have your squatters move in. Just drive down any neighborhood and look at boarded up homes, they are usually brokened in and have homeless or undesirables living in them. The police won't do anything about them other then make a report. If the towns do re-board them up, they're broken into again. I take illegal rentals over foreclosed/abandoned homes anytime. Get to the real root of the problem which as Crookhaven have pointed out, HIGH taxes and undesirable place to grow a family (problem across long island as a whole). All I see the anti-landlord sentiment moving in the direction of making "one blight" into a worser blight. I laughed when I saw the protest on news 12 follow by more laughing when the town supervisor Ed "champion" a crusade to "end this" blight with increase fines for everyone after reading articles about Suffolk county near bankruptcy and many future sources of revenues disappearing. Well gee can't raise taxes anymore as that will simply make more people leave the island.
And about the students safety, I think you underestimate a 20 year old being able to use their best judgement in stepping into a living hazard situation to save a few bucks.
I'm not gonna bother to read the entire thread. It sounds like the usual, hypocritical Long Island NIMBY complaining. As best as I can find out, the university has been in its present location since 1962. I wonder how many of the protesters have been there that long. It sounds like the people who move next to the LIE and then complain about the noise.
For you out-of-towners who are thinking of moving here, the NIMBYism is yet another great feature of this decaying suburb.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,099,287 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by longislander2
I'm not gonna bother to read the entire thread. It sounds like the usual, hypocritical Long Island NIMBY complaining. As best as I can find out, the university has been in its present location since 1962. I wonder how many of the protesters have been there that long. It sounds like the people who move next to the LIE and then complain about the noise.
For you out-of-towners who are thinking of moving here, the NIMBYism is yet another great feature of this decaying suburb.
Must be related to those that moved near the airport and do the same thing...
Got that letter today.....nothing more than a bunch of bs. The university is covering their butts. Its the town that needs to enforce the illegal activities.
It's not fixed because they don't want it fixed in Brookhaven.
Never underestimate the power of the gray market slumlord elite.
It's BS alright.
Crooks
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.
