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.
Well am glad they didn't get the building with "The District", so a least that
part of old Yorkville remains.
That surprised and gladdened me too. I'll bet there are a passle of very relieved tenants above THE DISTRICT. (I've never gone to the place. I should stop for a martini, presumably $15 or so, but I don't want to feel like everyone's grandfather.)
I noticed last night that their business seemed to be a bit off for a Friday night.
The did a nice job with the decorating.
Last edited by Kefir King; 09-26-2015 at 07:26 AM..
That surprised and gladdened me too. I'll bet there are a passle of very relieved tenants above THE DISTRICT. (I've never gone to the place. I should stop for a martini, presumably $15 or so, but I don't want to feel like everyone's grandfather.)
I noticed last night that their business seemed to be a bit off for a Friday night.
The did a nice job with the decorating.
Large parts of the UES seemed to have cleared out by late week.
In addition to Yom Kipper ending on Thursday (some persons just took Friday off and made a long weekend of it), all the madness of the Pope's visit caused some to make tracks as well.
Walked up to Third and 96th on Thursday night and yes, The District seemed empty, but then again so were many other places along that avenue. Walked down via Lexington and noticed same.
By the way never noticed before how really nice 93rd and 94th between Third and Lexington are as of late. People really have overhauled those old brownstones and other properties nicely.
Reason you aren't seeing more of those 100 year old low rise tenements come down is they are full of RS and even RC tenants. But give it time; perhaps not within many of our lifetimes but in say fifty or so years am betting First, Third and Second from say 72nd to 96th will resemble Columbus, Amsterdam.
To repeat my question:
Are there any constraints on a landlord wanting to tear down his property full of Rent stabilized apartments and rebuild luxury housing? Can he simply tell his tenants: "MOVE" or does he owe them something like alternate housing or some such?
To repeat my question:
Are there any constraints on a landlord wanting to tear down his property full of Rent stabilized apartments and rebuild luxury housing? Can he simply tell his tenants: "MOVE" or does he owe them something like alternate housing or some such?
Anybody know?
There is this, which is probably a reason (or set of reasons) that all sorts of people have come out here against de Blasio - and speciously so:
I should add that a significant change happened in 2008 (?), when HPD identified harassing practices as violations on a level with repair issues. This enabled tenants to sue landlords in court with HPD, citing different hostile practices just as they would no heat or hot water, for example.
In practice, landlords make out well with regulated buildings that are filled with transplants, who are either too ignorant or too selfish to pursue those rights that impact people beyond themselves. That said, people receive buy-outs.
Addressing your word "constraints" - it is a system founded on tenants making complaints or bringing things to official notice.
I should add that a significant change happened in 2008 (?), when HPD identified harassing practices as violations on a level with repair issues. This enabled tenants to sue landlords in court with HPD, citing different hostile practices just as they would no heat or hot water, for example.
In practice, landlords make out well with regulated buildings that are filled with transplants, who are either too ignorant or too selfish to pursue those rights that impact people beyond themselves. That said, people receive buy-outs.
Addressing your word "constraints" - it is a system founded on tenants making complaints or bringing things to official notice.
Thing is even with tenant commenced legal action against a LL the former's name still appears on those infamous "blacklists". That and or a future LL can simply do a search of housing court index numbers and find out. While in theory prospective tenants are supposed to be able to explain before being rejected many LLs don't want to know. If you've been to housing court for any reason your chances of finding a new place easily drop way down.
That surprised and gladdened me too. I'll bet there are a passle of very relieved tenants above THE DISTRICT. (I've never gone to the place. I should stop for a martini, presumably $15 or so, but I don't want to feel like everyone's grandfather.)
I noticed last night that their business seemed to be a bit off for a Friday night.
The did a nice job with the decorating.
Just walked down Third and noticed the new loft type apartment building at 94th. Am sure that was the former Mrs. Roles Laundry space.
Just walked down Third and noticed the new loft type apartment building at 94th. Am sure that was the former Mrs. Roles Laundry space.
That place (Southwest corner) has me scratching my head. I have been here just short of 5 years and the lot was a'building the whole time, never seen such slow construction, so I don't know what predated it.
Can it really be a single TOWNHOUSE as the outside placard seems to imply? It looks more like a suite of floor-through offices.
As a single townhouse it would be IMMENSE.
The construction is SOLID but very untownhouse-like.
So then the consensus is that a landlord could, on a whim and legally, evict his tenants, tear down his building and sell the lot to a developer. No threats, no buyouts, no harassment, just "Move within 60 days. Building being torn down" or "Lease will not be renewed at expiration because the building is set for demolition."
So then the consensus is that a landlord could, on a whim and legally, evict his tenants, tear down his building and sell the lot to a developer. No threats, no buyouts, no harassment, just "Move within 60 days. Building being torn down" or "Lease will not be renewed at expiration because the building is set for demolition."
Does anyone disagree with this?
Technically yes, any property owner can get shot of tenants RS or market rate and redevelop subject to zoning. There is even a clause in RS/RC laws that deals with a building being demolished/torn down.
Problem as with anything regarding RS and or RC tenants the City and State make the process very cumbersome and expensive. That means many property owners with buildings that have a majority of such tenants either don't bother or try other methods.
"One of the grounds upon which an owner may end a rent regulated tenancy (rent controlled or rent stabilized) is where the owner intends to demolish the building. However, in such situations, the owner must first obtain the approval of The Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).
The owner is required to file Form RA-54, "Owner's Application for Order Granting Approval to Refuse Renewal of Lease and/or to Proceed for Eviction" with DHCR. In New York City, if the building contains rent controlled tenants, before filing Form RA-54, the owner must also file with DHCR and serve the rent controlled tenants with Form RC-50 "Report and Certification To Alter or Demolish Occupied Housing Accommodations." The RC-50 needs to be filed prior to the submission of plans to the New York City Department of Buildings."
Again case in point Second Avenue between 81st and 80th Street were one half of a city block was purchased by Icon Properties and emptied out of RS and RC tenants.
In order not to be seen as *taking* a property RS/RC control laws cannot deprive a LL of his natural various rights. One of those would be use and or development of the land as he sees fit. However the process can be made difficult enough again that not many will bother. I mean for most apartment buildings on streets and not avenues tearing down one small six or ten floor building isn't going to be worth it because it cannot be replaced with anything larger due to zoning. In some cases since zoning changed *after* the building went up whatever comes afterwards would actually have to be smaller in height.
Case in point is the southwest corner of West 57th and 9th Avenue. That old SRO/tenement building that has sat vacant and or been home to squatters for decades. It is finally being redeveloped but would have been torn down except for the fact due to zoning changes anything new would have to be smaller.
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.
