Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-31-2012, 06:20 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
25,398 posts, read 37,151,865 times
Reputation: 12817

Advertisements

I think it's great: the system was set up to allow landlords to profit, this is taken for granted by landlords.
But the system is ALSO set up to benefit tenants in the case of abusive, or rapacious landlords.
Of COURSE landlords will go ballistic if their money flow is threatened.

A landlord's goal is to maximize his MONEY...should tenants be denied the same goal in this capitalist society?

A landlord has the right to offer a tenant a buyout to maximimize his cash flow and potential earnings. Why should a tenant not take advantage of the same thing.

This thread has shown me in another dimension how very irrational some landlords can be in search of MONEY...almost as if they received temporary lobotomies. It seems that their thinking is that NO GOOD should EVER come to a tenant. Really bizarre.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2012, 07:11 AM
 
2,517 posts, read 4,261,365 times
Reputation: 1948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
I think it's great: the system was set up to allow landlords to profit, this is taken for granted by landlords.
But the system is ALSO set up to benefit tenants in the case of abusive, or rapacious landlords.
Of COURSE landlords will go ballistic if their money flow is threatened.

A landlord's goal is to maximize his MONEY...should tenants be denied the same goal in this capitalist society?

A landlord has the right to offer a tenant a buyout to maximimize his cash flow and potential earnings. Why should a tenant not take advantage of the same thing.

This thread has shown me in another dimension how very irrational some landlords can be in search of MONEY...almost as if they received temporary lobotomies. It seems that their thinking is that NO GOOD should EVER come to a tenant. Really bizarre.
What's wrong with the buyout is that the LL has a tenant paying artificial low rents created by a fake system which sole existence is to keep left-winged polictians in power to keep that democrat stronghold in NYC alive.

A buyout should only occur if the LL wants the apartment back prior to the tenant's lease expiration and the tenant already pays fair market rent. It's not a monetary issue like it is in Rent Stabilization, it's a possession issue. Totally different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 07:20 AM
 
8,743 posts, read 18,396,133 times
Reputation: 4168
The system was not set-up to allow the landlords to profit. Why do you think rent stabilization, rent control, and the hugely tenant friendly laws exist? So that power is shifted to tenants, not landlords. EVERYONE'S goal (it seems) is to maximize money, the problem I have is this: A landlord BUYS something and wants a return on that investment...that is normal. A tenant RENTS something, with no investment or risk, and then extorts a landlord/abuses the system...see the difference? And therein lies the problem.

If you want to pay someone to leave....go for it! The problem I have is that it is now the ONLY way to get someone to leave..see the difference? When you rent to a tenant, you now lose all rights to that space since they have lifetime renewals...don't see a problem with that? A reasonable person should understand it is a problem, and a reasonable person would agree that a lifetime renewal is absurd.

Nobody is alleging that no good should come to a tenant. What I am saying is that the system is clearly broken, and should be fixed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 07:37 AM
 
4,947 posts, read 10,827,553 times
Reputation: 8577
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy View Post
A tenant RENTS something, with no investment or risk, and then extorts a landlord/abuses the system...see the difference?
How is it extortion when the landlord OFFERS the buy out in the first place?
Abuse of the system? I tried to utilize the system to get basic repairs.
Most of which went unanswered until the city got involved.
The repairs have NOTHING to do with that though.
It was no motivation to get money. I wanted the money they were handing out.....and I got it.
What about the tenants rights, since your concerned with landlord rights?
I'd like to see you address what I had to endure.
Where's the justice and fairness in that?
What you say may be true with others, but it simply was not the case with me.
I'd do it all over again if I had too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 07:42 AM
 
8,743 posts, read 18,396,133 times
Reputation: 4168
I am not necessarily saying this is exactly your case. If the Landlord wants you out prior to a lease expiration, that's perfectly fine. However, when the ONLY way to remove a tenant is through a buyout because they now have a lease in perpetuity which supercedes all else (with very very few exception) is where there is a problem. Understand that difference?

A simple resolution would be removing this lifetime renewal nonsense, and following a mutually agreed to expiration date, whether that be 1 month or 100 years. If both parties agree, so be it. The problem is, both parties agree to 1 year for example, but that is not legally binding as they are guaranteed renewals...FOR LIFE. Don't see a problem here? And that is why buyouts are not the ONLY way to remove a tenant...clearly this is a huge problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn New York
18,491 posts, read 31,701,265 times
Reputation: 28043
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaggerLee22 View Post
How is it extortion when the landlord OFFERS the buy out in the first place?
Abuse of the system? I tried to utilize the system to get basic repairs.
Most of which went unanswered until the city got involved.
The repairs have NOTHING to do with that though.
It was no motivation to get money. I wanted the money they were handing out.....and I got it.
What about the tenants rights, since your concerned with landlord rights?
I'd like to see you address what I had to endure.
Where's the justice and fairness in that?
What you say may be true with others, but it simply was not the case with me.
I'd do it all over again if I had too.

Oh you poor thing, my heart goes out for you. You had to endure such hardships.
The only reason you endured it was because your rent was cheap so you sucked it up.

If it were really that bad where is was un-liveable, any sensible person would have opted for better living conditions and moved....
But YOU chose to stay, why??, because the rent was cheap. I can understand that, but then stop complaining....


Even though a LL is supposed to maintain things for the apartment, I don't believe a LL should be responsible for painting an apartment while there are tenants living there. It should be painted after a tenant moves out only.

You live there, paint it yourself. That should be the tenants responsibility, why should a tenant be entitled to a paint job, that is one RS RC law I do not feel is fair to the LL.

Now you have a home, who is going to paint it now.


****sticks tongue out****


and again, I am feeling a bit Bi-Polar today, so I hope your roof leaks, or maybe a tree falls on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 07:57 AM
 
8,743 posts, read 18,396,133 times
Reputation: 4168
Nightcrawler, I hope you come to the city-data meetup...should be fun with you there!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 08:08 AM
 
4,947 posts, read 10,827,553 times
Reputation: 8577
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightcrawler View Post
The only reason you endured it was because your rent was cheap so you sucked it up.
100% CORRECT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by nightcrawler View Post

Even though a LL is supposed to maintain things for the apartment, I don't believe a LL should be responsible for painting an apartment while there are tenants living there. It should be painted after a tenant moves out only.
Who cares what you think? It's the law.
Your opinion means nothing. You cannot change the law because you don't like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightcrawler View Post
and again, I am feeling a bit Bi-Polar today, so I hope your roof leaks, or maybe a tree falls on it.
More jealousy and bitterness.
You shouldn't wish such hardship on people---it sometimes comes back to haunt you.
Plus...it's childish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 05:22 PM
 
106,981 posts, read 109,241,493 times
Reputation: 80382
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilltopjay View Post
What's wrong with the buyout is that the LL has a tenant paying artificial low rents created by a fake system which sole existence is to keep left-winged polictians in power to keep that democrat stronghold in NYC alive.

A buyout should only occur if the LL wants the apartment back prior to the tenant's lease expiration and the tenant already pays fair market rent. It's not a monetary issue like it is in Rent Stabilization, it's a possession issue. Totally different.
well the flip side is we have to buy out the leases because we are forced to renew them forever.

if a tenant wants out of a lease i can charge him for damages if he breaks our contract. by the same token if i want to break my contract as a landlord i have to pay.

i dont resent having to pay from a contractual perspective, i resent paying because im forced into it by the politicians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 07:20 PM
 
136 posts, read 193,673 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
A landlord's goal is to maximize his MONEY...should tenants be denied the same goal in this capitalist society?
If you think the rent system in NYC is CAPITALIST then you have absolutely NO understanding of the system. The Rent Stabilization system is a TOTALLY GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED system which has given a select group in the population entitlements which are almost unheard of anywhere else. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism. It is the OPPOSITE of capitalism.

And it results in many abuses and ridiculous peculiarities, such as an owner paying a large sum of money to an unwanted, but legal, occupier for HIS property.

This entitled group feeds at the trough of not just the titular property owner, but also at that of market-rent tenants and all NY city and state tax payers. The system absolutely STINKS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top