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.
This is an indication of how stupid the rent regulations are that they cause this sort of problem.
Totally agree. This type of behavior is only unique to Rent Control/Rent Stabilized buildings where tenants can legally pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars below market rents despite the Landlord having no choice but to pay MARKET rates on it's operating expenses.
So in a nutshell, this is what Rent Control/Rent Stabilization sums up to:
-Tenants pays below market rents
-Landlord pays market expenses
Anyone with half a brain can see the math doesn't add up.
So as a result depending how bad the situation is, the landlord has to resort to these measures to remove below market tenants. And quite honestly, I don't blame them. You gotta do what you gotta do.
Had these been a normal market rate property like 99% of the country, the landlord would NOT have to resort to such measures.
Here's a thought...tenant pays market rates and the Landlord pays market rate expenses.
Even Steven!
Such a difficult concept for the ruling NYC liberal Democrats to grasp.
Totally agree. This type of behavior is only unique to Rent Control/Rent Stabilized buildings where tenants can legally pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars below market rents despite the Landlord having no choice but to pay MARKET rates on it's operating expenses.
So in a nutshell, this is what Rent Control/Rent Stabilization sums up to:
-Tenants pays below market rents
-Landlord pays market expenses
Anyone with half a brain can see the math doesn't add up.
So as a result depending how bad the situation is, the landlord has to resort to these measures to remove below market tenants. And quite honestly, I don't blame them. You gotta do what you gotta do.
Had these been a normal market rate property like 99% of the country, the landlord would NOT have to resort to such measures.
Here's a thought...tenant pays market rates and the Landlord pays market rate expenses.
Even Steven!
Such a difficult concept for the ruling NYC liberal Democrats to grasp.
The law allows you to apply for increases if your expenses are a true hardship--as you well know.
- Some portion of tenants milk the system.
- LL should live with poor business decision they made in the past
- Law needs to be revisited and amended so you can't do crap like handing down through families
You create a situation where a building is more valuable empty than rented out, and you're surprised that, by whatever means necessary, buildings get emptied out? This was always a predictable outcome.
NYC would have been much better off if rent regulation never happened, and the rental market was allowed to adjust to demand conditions naturally. We'd have more supply and lower marginal rents. As it is now rent regulation is a type of lottery you win by just never moving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febtober
Yes. The law is to blame for people breaking the law. Brilliant.
You create a situation where a building is more valuable empty than rented out, and you're surprised that, by whatever means necessary, buildings get emptied out? This was always a predictable outcome.
NYC would have been much better off if rent regulation never happened, and the rental market was allowed to adjust to demand conditions naturally. We'd have more supply and lower marginal rents. As it is now rent regulation is a type of lottery you win by just never moving.
Clearly landlords have ways around that. Put the building in really bad shape and have it condemned. Empty it out!
I'm not sure I understand the hustle here. A landlord wants to "cleanse" his building of stabilized tenants, so he sabotages it and gets it declared unsafe for habitation and gets condemned by the city. The tenants have to leave, and the landlord makes repairs for the building to be habitable again.
Aren't the leases still valid even then? Can't the tenants move right back in?
If a building is declared uninhabitable the leases and technically null and void. The owner could sell to a developers who tears the building down and buildings something else. Or the building could be entirely gutted and the new apartments placed in there by the new owner will clearly go for far more than the previous rent stabilized apartments.
Totally agree. This type of behavior is only unique to Rent Control/Rent Stabilized buildings where tenants can legally pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars below market rents despite the Landlord having no choice but to pay MARKET rates on it's operating expenses.
So in a nutshell, this is what Rent Control/Rent Stabilization sums up to:
-Tenants pays below market rents
-Landlord pays market expenses
Anyone with half a brain can see the math doesn't add up.
So as a result depending how bad the situation is, the landlord has to resort to these measures to remove below market tenants. And quite honestly, I don't blame them. You gotta do what you gotta do.
Had these been a normal market rate property like 99% of the country, the landlord would NOT have to resort to such measures.
Here's a thought...tenant pays market rates and the Landlord pays market rate expenses.
Even Steven!
Such a difficult concept for the ruling NYC liberal Democrats to grasp.
Rent regulated apartments are rapidly ceasing to exist in NYC anyway. Once you get tenants out of buildings like this, the building can be torn down and replaced by condos. Or in some cases apartments are upgraded and the prices increased to above what rent regulations cover. As more boomers retire in the next few years and move to whatever place like Florida or Arizona (or for the ones in poor health the nursing home) expect to see a lot more units leave rent regulation.
And yes, the incentive is too great for landlords to push their tenants out for most not to do what it takes to get rid of low paying tenants. No matter what regulations are put in place, the marketplace will always find away to deal with it.
Landlords get rid of tenants by busting up the building. Sometimes they even buy them out. I've also known landlords to higher private investigators and find out primary tenants don't even live in the rent stabilized apartments. They are subleasing, and in some cases the primary tenant lives in a house upstate NY, in another state or country. But they make money on subleasing the apartment, and obviously most of this money goes to the primary tenant . Therefore the landlord is screwed. They can then sell the building to developers or whatever.
The law allows you to apply for increases if your expenses are a true hardship--as you well know.
Why bother to apply for an increase from the government when you have more of an incentive to get rid of your tenants and sell the building or charge what you want?
Why do you even need the city's permission to charge more money? Since when is a government bureaucrat your parent?
Clearly landlords have ways around that. Put the building in really bad shape and have it condemned. Empty it out!
This is just like when Bronx landlords burnt down their buildings back in the 70s/80s, except all they wanted was the insurance and nothing else to do with building.
History always finds a way of repeating itself in this city.
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.
